Sender: H-Net/H-Urban Seminar on History of Community Organizing & <COMM-ORG@UICVM.UIC.EDU> Subject: COMMENT: Community Organizing or Organizing Community? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 31 May 1996 12:48:10 CDT From: Wendy Plotkin <U13972@UICVM.BITNET>

Posted by David Swain <dswain@osprey.unf.edu>

What a fascinating paper Randy Stoecker and Susan Stall have brought us. Thanks.

I'd like to comment.

First, from a personal perspective, Randy and Susan's two types -- Alinsky style, macho community organizing and women-oriented organizing community -- ring true. I learned the Alinsky approach as a VISTA volunteer in the late 1960s but never fully practiced it because of my own personal style and because I always felt it was a one-sided approach.

Lately, I've been involved in an organization that seeks to build community consensus and is heavily into a fairly touchy-feely form of community conflict resolution (we've been successful behind the scenes, as nonconfrontational catalysts within the last year or so for major community consensus agreements on sex education in the public schools and school desegregation in Jacksonville). Interestingly enough, I happen to be the only male among a staff of eight.

Second, a more analytical comment. I think it would be interesting to dissect the types Randy and Susan present in another direction, so to speak. At what level are these types most evident and important? At the tactical level, the strategic level, or the mission/vision level?

I raise this point in order to get to a third. In my mind and experience, the Alinsky approach was inextricably a part of the 1960s new left movement for radical (we'd say today systemic) economic and social change. Even the feds toyed with the approach briefly through Community Action Agencies. The left articulated the need to force radical change by confronting the establishment. OEO talked about the need to get at the "root causes" of poverty, which, in many of our minds, were at least fertilized by the same establishment.

At this level, the Alinsky approach was part and parcel of the mission of the day. It wasn't just a tactic or even a strategy. At the time, I think we felt that radical change would never come in this country without confrontation. Process and product seemed to merge.

Now the world seems more complicated, in terms of vision, strategy, and even tactics. Does Randy and Susan's conclusion, that both types are useful if the strengths of each are melded together, suggest that radical change as we envisioned it in the 1960s is a lost cause and we should learn to settle for less? Or does it mean that with more sophisticated strategies and tactics, systemic change is indeed possible as perhaps it wasn't using Alinsky-style confrontation alone? Or does it mean that we, as a society, no longer wish for radical, systemic change?

As often is the case, my comments turn quickly to questions. I'd be interested in others' responses.

David -------------------------------------------------------------------- David Swain, Associate Director phone (904) 396-3052 Jacksonville Community Council Inc. fax (904) 398-1469 2434 Atlantic Boulevard, Suite 100 e-mail dswain@osprey.unf.edu Jacksonville, FL 32207 or dcswain@moe.fcol.com -------------------------------------------------------------------- [For information on the work of the Jacksonville Community Council, send e-mail to listserv@uicvm.uic.edu with the message:

GET SWAIN INTRO

W. Plotkin, COMM-ORG] ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 12:18:56 CDT Posted by Michael Byrd <byrd@library.vanderbilt.edu>

There is one particularly illuminating passage from Horwitt's _Let Them Call Me Rebel_ which supports Randy Stoecker's and Susan Stall's claim of the gendered assumptions of Alinskyite organizing efforts. Here's an excerpt:

Alinsky viewed the [IAF] training institute as a great experiment . . . . The first trainees began arriving early in 1969--young men and women recently out of college . . . . One prospect, Susan Kellock, who had been sent by the National Student Association, remembers going into Alinsky's office for her first interview. "Why do you want to organize?" he asked innocently. Her earnest, lengthy reply was to the effect that she wanted to bring people together, work at the grass roots, create better living conditions. When she finished, Alinsky glared at her, his deep voice getting louder as he repeated: "Why do you want to organize, goddamnit?" She later discovered that the correct answer was one word: "power." [pp. 529--530]

I think that this exchange demonstrates one of the points that Stoecker and Stall are on to in their paper: i. e., Alinsky had little patience for practical or relational frameworks which sought to build community instead of an organizational power base.

Michael Byrd, Ph.D. Candidate Religion, Ethics, & Society Vanderbilt University ========================================================================= <a name=dreier.doc> Date: Tue, 4 Jun 1996 18:22:46 CDT Posted by Peter Dreier <dreier@oxy.edu> </a> I want to respond to the Stoecker/Stall paper, and to the various comments on it, but I don't have the time right now to do justice to their thoughtful work. So here are five basic points:

1. The IAF has changed quite a bit since Alinsky's time. The IAF network does not view Alinsky as a god or follow his writings uncritically. Thus reading Alinsky's books, or Horwitt's biography, is not adequate to understand the current IAF practice. Also, people who worked with IAF in the l960s or l970s, but not recently, will not recognize the IAF today.

2. Even though we often use the buzz word "empowerment," many progressives and radicals have a very ambivalent attitude toward "power." They often view power as corrupting. But "power" is neither good nor bad, not corrupting nor liberating. Power is the ability to get things done. It depends on who has it, who uses it, how it is used, and for what ends. It depends on whether people/organizations that wield power are accountable to a constituency. I'd strongly recommend reading Mary Beth Rogers' book, COLD ANGER, about Ernie Cortes and the Texas IAF, which provides a useful analytic view of how IAF community organizations view power.

3. We overemphasize the differences between "schools" and "styles" of community organizing -- or labor organizing or electoral organizing, for that matter. Organizing is basically about winning victories that improve people's lives. You can do it well or you can to it poorly. It requires mobliizing constituencies, developing strong organizations, building leadership, forging coalitions, engaging in strategic and tactical choices. Most of the differences between "schools" and "styles" of organizing are like family feuds that lose sight of the underlying commonalities. Or they are about "turf" -- competition for money, influence, constitutencies, etc. Sure, there are differences, as Stoecker/Stall and others suggest, but let's not lose sight of the forest through the trees.

4. The big question that gets missed by this kind of debate is why community organizing in the U.S. today "adds up" to so little. There are thousands of community organizations around the country, each with staff, leaders, connstituency, issues. Some do a better job than others. Most hardly make a dent. Some are tied to larger networks like IAF, ACORN, National Coalition for the Homeless, Citizens Clearinghouse on Toxics, etc. Most aren't. There are thousands of people today (I'd love to figure out how many) who get paid a salary to be "organizers." These groups often manage to win victories around a wide variety of issues. But, despite this, there no progressive community organizing "movement" in the U.S. today with a common policy agenda and strategy. The world of community organizing is fragmented and balkanized, not so much over "schools" or "styles" as over turf and issues. The way foundations allocate their funds exacerbates this fragmentation. (See Karen Paget, "Citizen Organizing: Many Movements, No Majority," THE AMERICAN PROSPECT, Summer 1990; and and John Judis, "The Pressure Elite," THE AMERICAN PROSPECT, Spring 1992). There isn't even a way for these people and groups to talk with each other about common concerns and to build on each other's experiences, much less forge strategic alliances. So when it comes to working for important bills in Congress (or even state legislatures), or targeting key political races, or even working on common issues ("living wage" ordinances, rent control, school reform), there are few ways to coordinate. (I discuss these dilemmas in more detail in my article in the next issue of Cityscape, which folks can get from HUD's Office of Policy Development & Research).

5. There's a new trend that many observers of community organizing have overlooked: We are seeing more and more connections between labor organizing and community organizing. Many of the best labor organizing campaigns of the past decade drew on community organizing strategies, forged alliances with church and community groups, and even developed leaders with experience in community organizations. A good example of this is the work of the Culinary Workers and SEIU in Las Vegas, profiled in THE NEW YORKER magazine's Feb 26/March 4 issue. Another example is that coalition between BUILD (an IAF affiliate) and SEIU in Baltimore around the "living wage" campaign. The Hotel Workers union local in LA and Boston, and SEIU's "justice for janitors" campaigns also reflect this trend. Kate Bronfenbrenner (at Cornell's Industrial and Labor Relations School) and Tom Juravich have done some fascinating studies on the dynamics of successful labor organizing, and find that it often draws on community organizing work. The election of John Sweeny as head of the AFL-CIO is in many ways the culmination of a new generation of labor activists, many of whom have experience and backgrounds in community organizing. The Sweeny regime, with Richard Bensinger as the new director of organizing, will expand on this labor-community connection. In this regard, I'd recommend Richard Rothstein's article on the labor movement in the current issue of THE AMERICAN PROSPECT. His article is a sobering assessment of the potential for a renewed progressive labor movement and the importance of enacting federal labor law reform.

Peter Dreier Intl. & Public Affairs Center Occidental College Los Angeles, CA 90041 ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 6 Jun 1996 23:04:00 CDT Posted by MICKEY LAURIA <MYLUR@jazz.ucc.uno.edu>

Comments on Stoecker and Stall

My advisees and I get together for coffee once a month to discuss their respective progress on their curriculum, research projects, theses, dissertations, and the community struggles in which they are involved. During the last few months we have been using Comm-Org. Seminar as a backdrop for our discussions. The last two months we discussed particular papers from the seminar. In this May's session, we discussed the Stoecker and Stall paper. I have a few comments to communicate from that discussion.

A major area of contention was whether or not the typology developed by Stoecker and Stall was used as straw persons, ideal types, or merely for conceptual clarification. Some participants thought that it was very useful in isolating important distinctions for conceptual clarification, others felt that the typology was not really ideal types in that few, and maybe no, actual existing organizations fit the types (see Peter's comments on change in the IAF). Finally, some took this 'lack of fit' problem further to suggest that the types were merely straw persons used in the rhetorical play to call for a middle ground. These positions are not merely pedantic for they have implications for each of the comparative axes that Stoecker and Stall develop (Power, Polity, Public and Private Spheres, Human Nature, Conflict, etc.). For example, does the Alinsky model view power as solely a zero sum while the women-centered model views it as socially constructed? If there is a middle ground, are organizing communities using that middle ground? If so, are they of Alinsky or women-centered heritage? This leads to a potentially interesting project - How do the existing schools plus some sample of independent organizing institutions measure up to this typology? Maybe there is an ideal type out there that we need to get a handle on. The last tangent on this issue is that I suspect that the Stoecker and Stall typology is not one based on the ideal type methodology (contrary to their assertion on page 4) but rather is based on a rational abstraction approach (a la critical realism). This is not a criticism, for I prefer the latter approach. I think the paper would benefit from a discussion of how the typology was developed.

Another area of discussion concerned the representation of the two approaches. To summarize, Stoecker and Stall suggest that the Alinsky model (IAF approach) was just that, a model developed and promoted by one man, while the women-centered model had no single matriarch but rather was collectively developed by many women and evolved over time. The questions posed were: was the Alinsky model really developed and promoted solely by Alinsky or is this merely how its historical development has been represented via 'great man theories of history and politics.' Would a social historian or biographer taking a structurationist or social constructivist model of history and politics represent it in the same fashion (an interesting tangent: How did Fisher represent its development and propagation in his _Let the People Decide_? I do not recall offhand.)? I would venture to guess that a structurationist representation (revision of history) might make this distinction evaporate. Then the question becomes how important is this distinction to Stoecker and Stall's overall argument and the value of the paper. On the one hand, I suspect the paper has value without this argument. On the other hand, I also suspect that a structurationist historical representation would have served the authors better in developing their typology and more importantly in explaining how their called-for integration (third from last paragraph) of the two models across each principle is likely to be occurring in practice.

Finally, it could also be added that it seems that, for Stoecker and Stall, theory and procedures are not clearly distinguished. Sometimes, as in the Alinsky model, what seems to be dominant are procedures whereas in the women-centered approach a more theoretical world view is predominant. Perhaps it would be useful to compare 'like with like' - theories with theories and procedures with procedures. This would then clarify the possibilities of midpoints, i.e., are the women-centered and Alinsky approaches so basically different that compromise is difficult? Do they meet somewhere in procedures and what is actually to be done? How are these approaches likened to traditional theories of social and political change? Perhaps this would also overcome some of the problems of ideal-type formulations.

Mick

Mickey Lauria, Professor and Director Division of Urban Research and Policy Studies College of Urban and Public Affairs University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70148 Office: 504-286-7106 Home: 504-486-3560 Fax: 504-286-6272 Email: Mylur@uno.edu

[Ed: Peter Dreier's and earlier comments on the Stocker/Stall paper are available by sending e-mail to listserv@uicvm.uic.edu with the message:

GET ALINSKY COMMENTS

If you are interested in obtaining the paper itself, the comments, and additional materials such as Bob Slayton's review of Horwitt's biography of Alinsky, substitute for the above message:

GET ALINSKY PACKAGE

-- W. Plotkin, COMM-ORG] ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 07:06:49 CDT Posted by Peter Dreier <dreier@oxy.edu>

Response to Lauria's comments:

Pardon me if this comment sounds anti-intellectual, but I hope this seminar on Community Organizing can stick to reasonably plain English when communicating ideas. Mickey Lauria's comments (on the Stoecker/Stall paper) reflect the kind of academic mumbo-jumbo that makes many people (including many organizers) cynical/skeptical about academics -- not unlike physicist Sokol's recent article in SOCIAL TEXT that made fun of post-modernism for its hopeless obscurantism. I hope that the discussions at Professor Lauria's monthly coffee klatches with students don't sound like these comments. Do students really sit around the snack bar talking about "social constructivism" and saying things like, "I would venture to guess that a structurationist representation (revision of history) might make this distinction evaporate"? I understand that it's important to develop some conceptual tools to understand the practice of community organizing, but let's try to talk and write as straightforwardly as possible.

Peter Dreier Occidental College ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 08:19:52 CDT Posted by Wendy Plotkin <U13972@uicvm.uic.edu>

As convenor of COMM-ORG, I'd like to respond to Peter's note about Mickey Lauria's comments.

I value Mickey's class's comments on Randy and Susan's paper, as they take this seminar seriously and raise interesting methodological issues, such as defining "Alinskyism" -- is this Alinsky's philosophy or is it the set of ideas and values associated with those working with organizations created or inspired by Alinsky? Does the paper accurately capture the evolution of these ideas over time or does it offer too narrow a picture of "Alinskyism" as a set of ideas of one man at a particular time?

I'm sure that Randy and Susan will respond to these comments in late June or early July, when their semesters have ended.

On the other hand, I agree with Peter that it is desirable for those in the academic community to "translate" the technical terms they use in a forum where there are graduate students and community organizers who are interested in the ideas but lack the language that has developed in academia. In fact, this is a goal of COMM-ORG, to allow academics and community organizers to talk to each other.

Thus, it might be valuable to hear more about the "ideal type" and "rational abstraction" approaches introduced in the comments as well as the definitions of "structurationist" and "social constructivist" models of history -- and their significance to the topic at hand -- the effectiveness of different organizing styles at various times and in varying political climates.

I am also interested in hearing from others on their reactions to the paper, especially those of you who have written on the topic of community organizing or who are organizers themselves.

Wendy Plotkin COMM-ORG ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 19:45:22 CDT Posted by Randy Stoecker <rstoeck@pop3.UTOLEDO.EDU>

Hi all. In about a week I, or Susan and I, will respond to all the fascinating discussion that is taking place around our paper comparing the classical Alinsky approach and what we call a women-centered approach to community organizing. But quickly here I want to comment on Peter Drier's comments on Mickey Lauria's comments on the paper.

I share Peter's overall critique, that often academic language is exclusionary. At the same time, I find Mickey's comments very interesting and frankly quite understandable (us marxists and "post-marxists" talk this way all the time and we all know what we are talking about even if we exclude the rest of the world while doing it).

Because we (on this list) are not only interdisciplinary, but interprofessional (is that a word?), we all need to be very careful about the language we use and the stories we tell. This applies even to Peter Drier's critique. How many people on this list, for example, know anything about Sokol's poking fun at "postmodernism" (how many people, for that matter, know anything about postmodernism, including those that think they do)(by the way, Sokol wrote an article that he made sound like it was "postmodernist"--using all the right words--only he knew nothing about the theory and just wanted to see if he could get a paper published by using the right buzz words. It worked and he made fools out of an entire field of thought).

Now, personally, I think it is more useful to ask specific questions about exclusionary language than to simply label it exclusionary. I get the message when someone asks me to define "constructionism" and I fall all over myself trying to backpedal. But if they just tell me I'm being an obscurantist academic I can more easily dismiss them.

What I think is important here is that this discussion could all lead to an interesting debate on the role of theory in community organizing and how important it is for organizers to be intellectuals, so I think the whole thing is worth some more discussion. Should organizers just organize, or should they become "organic theorists" or should they also be well trained in intellectual theorizing (and if they are will that make intellectual theorizing more practical)?

Randy Stoecker Associate Professor of Sociology, Research Associate in Urban Affairs Department of Sociology, Anthropology, Social Work University of Toledo Toledo, OH 43606

phone 419-530-4975 fax 419-530-8406

"Community Before Capital" ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 12 Jun 1996 22:45:01 CDT Posted by MICKEY LAURIA <MYLUR@jazz.ucc.uno.edu>

Reply to Professor Dreier's "Attack":

Although I did not detect it and nor did those students who reviewed the comment prior to submitting it to Comm-Org, there must have been a problem with the tone of my rendition of our coffee klatch's discussion. For this I apologize, for I certainly did not wish to sound pedantic, obscure, let alone proffer academic mumbo-jumbo. But I do not apologize for the tone of this response. It is intentional.

First, the sentence that Professor Dreier quotes from my comment ["I would venture to guess that a structurationist representation (revision of history) might make this distinction evaporate."], is very straightforward, contains no mumbo-jumbo, and is certainly not postmodern. However, it does use words that are embedded in theoretical (philosophical, epistemological, ontological, and methodological) discourses that a reader need be familiar with to understand its force. Unfortunately, to some extent that is the nature of all language, in this case it is scholarly/academic language (see next comment below). Also, unfortunately, Professor Dreier does not appear to be familiar with much of this literature. If he is truly interested in the problem of representation and/or structure/agency in history or social science I could, as I know many others participating in this seminar, provide him with references. Given the unwarranted anti-intellectual tone of his comment, he is likely to consider this literature academic mumbo-jumbo. Evidently, Wendy did not have any problem decifering our mumbo jumbo. Fortunately, I doubt that Randy (and I can only hope that Susan will not - for I do not know her) will respond to our constructive criticism in like fashion.

Secondly, the Stoecker and Stall paper was written for and I wrote and sent our comment to Comm-Org, not CD4Urban or Urban-L. As I understand, the Comm-Org Seminar is for historians and other scholars (academicians), interested in the history of community organizing and community-based development. In our coffee klatch, this translates to graduate students (MA, MURP and PHD) interested in community organizing and community-based development from historical, planning, geographical, political, and and/or anthropological perspectives. Just to make sure I had not projected my interests onto the seminar, I went back to my Comm-Org Welcome message and Comm-Org Seminar file saved for reference. Low and behold, this is what I found:

"Welcome to the H-Urban Seminar on the History of Community Organizing and Community-Based Development. The seminar will involve the periodic presentation and discussion from November 1995 through fall 1996 of papers, book reviews, and other relevant material on the history of community organizing, community organizations, and community-based development in North America, the Pacific Rim, South Africa, Asia, and Europe.

The seminar is funded by the Great Cities program of the University of Illinois at Chicago, and is an attempt to use the Internet for serious scholarly international and interdisciplinary collaboration. . . . (CD4Urban already covers the theory and practice of contemporary community-based development)" (Usage guidelines for Comm-Org).

"What is the goal of the seminar? -------------------------------- The major goal of the seminar is to allow, via the Internet, an international and interdisciplinary investigation of the history of community organizing and community-based development. . . .

Through this investigation, H-Urban hopes to:

o broaden the depth and range of current research on and understanding of the history of community-based responses to urban problems

o develop an awareness among urban scholars of the history of community-based development, in the context of the histories of community organizing, housing development, and economic development, respectively.

o offer the opportunity for international comparisons on the history of community organizing and community-based development

o make available historical information on community organizing and development for current community organizers and developers" (File: Comm-Org Seminar at Listserv@uicvm.uic.edu).

My point here is that I do not think I was speaking/writing out of context.

Thirdly, I do not apologize for the scholarly nature of the discussions in our coffee klatch. Out of classroom (as compared to competitive grade-base politicized class discussion), scholarly discussion is sorely missing in many if not most planning graduate programs. One of the reasons that the coffee klatch was created was to encourage such discussion.

Finally, Professor Dreier is absolutely off-base in equating our comments with the _Social Text_ fiasco, which is saddening especially coming from such an intelligent and otherwise knowledgable person. I must say, I respect his experiential base, have always enjoyed his writing, and have used his written work in my planning courses. This equation of all complex language with the _Social Text_ fiasco and the corresponding desire to reduce all discourse to plain language in an increasingly complex modern world is likely to lead to the accusation that all complex texts are academic mumbo-jumbo. A priori qualifications of this sort represent a form of censorship that generates an intellectual fundamentalist backlash that makes one fear some kind of return to the worst excesses of the 'cultural revolution.'

Insulted, angered, sad but not ashamed,

Mick

PS. In response to Wendy's call for discussion of the language used in my comment, here are a few places to begin:

Ideal type - see Saunders, Peter. 1986. _Social Theory and the Urban Question_. New York: Holmes and Meier Publisers, Inc. pp. 3- 33. or the horse's mouth, Weber, Max. 1949. _The Methodology of the Social Sciences_. New York: Free Press.

Rational Abstraction - See Sayer, Andrew. 1992. _Method in Social Science_. New York: Routledge, pp. 138-40.

Structurationist - See Giddens, Anthony. 1984. _The Constitution of Society_.Cambridge: Polity.

Social Constructivist - See Berger, Peter L. and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. _The Social Construction of Reality_. New York: Doubleday.

PS. This response was also cleared and edited by other coffee klatch members.

Mickey Lauria, Professor and Director Division of Urban Research and Policy Studies College of Urban and Public Affairs University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70148 Office: 504-286-7106 Home: 504-486-3560 Fax: 504-286-6272 Email: Mylur@uno.edu ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 09:43:36 CDT Posted by Wendy Plotkin <U13972@uicvm.uic.edu>

In the last posting, Mickey Lauria indicated that as a result of an earlier posting by Peter Drier, he was

"Insulted, angered, sad but not ashamed"

I am saddened that an exchange on COMM-ORG has led to this conclusion, and would like to clarify the role of COMM-ORG and of the editor to ensure closure on this issue.

COMM-ORG is first and foremost a forum for scholarly discussion of the history and theory of community organizing and development, as Mickey cited from the Welcome Letter. Thus, it differs from other more casual, hands-on lists whose valuable purpose is primarily the sharing of strategies about the day-to-day tasks of community organizing and development.

On the other hand, drawing on the improvements in access allowed by the Internet, COMM-ORG has incorporated another goal -- to invite the participation of community organizers and developers into the academic discussion. Catalyzed by my own transition from the public to the academic world(*), I see this interaction as a means of bringing "the real world" into the halls of academia and perspective into the pressured world of organizers and developers. I'd guess that in an analysis of the history of policy-making and organizing, and of mistakes in each area of activity, lack of reality and lack of perspective would stand out as major causes, although the influence of power, prejudice, and wealth are certainly potent causes in their own right.

This is not an easy task, and for some, not as satisfying as a seminar for advanced scholars or an international strategy session among organizers and developers. However, it is worth a try, and this has been one of the goals of COMM-ORG, especially with its Great Cities funding, although this is most likely not stated clearly enough in the Welcome Letter.

As to the exchange between Professors Dreier and Lauria, I'd like to take some responsibility for the situation by not fully carrying through in the role of an editor, especially an editor on an H-Net list in which civility is one of the primary goals amidst the other major goal of stimulating scholarly exchanges. In particular, I'd like to extend an apology to Professor Lauria for exposing him to an attack that should have occurred as private communication. In this situation, were I to do it over again, I'd

o ask Mickey to clarify his language in the initial posting, to allow the extremely valuable insights to be understood by the majority of seminar participants. I am almost certain that there are scholars among the participants who are not familiar with the highly abstract language adopted by some scholars to represent various theories of how and why social change occurs -- theories that debate the relative importance of influential individuals and long term social forces, or of the relative importance of one's place as an employee as opposed to one's position as a consumer in determining how the individual gauges his position in the capitalist community. Although phrased in abstract language, these debates emerged from real life situations that contradicted earlier expectations of the types of coalitions that would emerge in a capitalist society, e.g. -- would a factory worker who owned a home act in unity with other factory workers in the community who were tenants, and under what circumstances?

In fact, I am arranging for an elaboration of some of these concepts on COMM-ORG in future weeks.

o ask Peter to re-phrase his critique of Mickey's posting to call for a clarification of language, and allow Peter to communicate in private with Mickey about his other concerns about Mickey's teaching style.

I share with Mickey his appreciation of Peter's work, and of Peter's contribution to the seminar of his three syllabi (on the COMM-ORG WWW site) and discussion of the need for coalition among community organizations across the United States. (I'm trying to get Peter's article in HUD's May CITYSCAPE on-line, but technical difficulties are in the way.)

For the future, I'd like to invite discussion of the Stoecker/ Stall paper, including the issues raised in Mickey's critique; of the value (and desire for additional understanding) of theory in the work of community organizers and developers; and of any other issues raised by past papers in the seminar or current concerns of scholars and practitioners in the areas of community organizing and development.

I take this opportunity to share with you some of the complexities of being an H-Net editor, not so different from that of the editor of a scholarly or semi-scholarly journal, but under the influence of a much more rapid and fluid medium.

One of the major means of improving the quality of editing is by having more than one editor to a list, allowing an exchange of opinions and sharing of experiences. I invite those of you interested in using the Internet as a means of scholarly and strategic communication to consider coming on to COMM-ORG as an editor. This is especially important as my own involvement in COMM-ORG is coming to an end in coming months (out of necessity, not desire), and the continued existence, as well as the shape, of COMM-ORG will depend on the emergence of others willing to act as editors.

This is something that the COMM-ORG Advisory Board is considering now, and there'll be more about this later in the month or in July, but in the meantime, your opinions on what is most and least valuable about COMM-ORG would be appreciated (for private use, not for public posting).

Wendy Plotkin COMM-ORG U13972@uicvm.uic.edu WWW: http://h-net.msu.edu/~urban/comm-org

*If you're interested in this transition, see the Introduction I sent to the seminar in the beginning, available by sending e-mail to listserv@uicvm.uic.edu with the message: GET PLOTKIN INTRO ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 10:12:03 CDT Posted by Stanley Wenocur <SWENOCUR@SSW2.AB.UMD.EDU>

I appreciate the effort to make this comparison, but I had a lot of problems with the paper. Among them are the following:

1) The view of Alinsky organizing presented in the paper does not apply well to current IAF organizing. Maybe it applies to Alinsky's early work or Alinsky organizing at an earlier stage of development. I'd recommend that the authors read Mary Beth Rogers, IN COLD ANGER; IAF 50 Years: ORGANIZING FOR CHANGE, put out by the IAF in 1990; Hanna and Robinson, STRATEGIES FOR COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT; and Hanna and Robinson, "Lessons for Academics from Grassroots Comunity Organizing: A Case Study: The Industrial Areas Foundation", in THE JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PRACTICE, Vol 1 (4), 1994.

In the IAF publication, for example, just on the concept of power alone, which is key to the authors' comparison, the IAF writes (p. 31)

"The IAF teaches people that unilateral power is not as productive as reciprocal power based on mutually beneficial relationships. Power tends to come in two forms: organized money and organized people. IAF believes small amounts of organized money, coupled with large amounts of organized people, can open the door for meaningful participation. The IAF believes there can be good or evil in the exercise of power and, in reality, power is generally used ambiguously".

Leadership is viewed collectively. Charismatic leaders are not what IAF is about. About leadership, the IAF writes (p.3 ),

"Most people have leadership qualities, but often their talents are unrecognized and undeveloped. IAF has no traditional officers. Seven to nine people serve for short, revolving periods, sharing the operation of the organization with one or two organizers. A core collective of 35 to 55 design actions. An assembly of 90 to 200 leaders affirm organizational actions. Hundreds and thousands of people execute them. In this way, many people, not just one or two "stars" are able to lead."

These short statements can only hint at the structure and style of IAF organizations today. I think the authors don't have an accurate picture. Their interpretation of the meaning of self-interest, of consciousness- raising, or relationship-building and process vs. outcome does not jibe with IAF organizing.

2) The basic idea behind the paper seems to be that gender and the socialization that comes with gender roles account for the difference in style between Alinsky organizing and women-centered (feminist) models of organizing. It seems to me that diffrences in goals could better account for the differences in organizing styles. I'd like to see a comparison of organizing models when the goals are similar. For example, if we compare men's consciousness-raising groups and women's c-r groups, are they different? In what way? If we compare political campaigns for public office run by men and by women, do they look similar or different?

So, are the differences in style posed by the authors really a function of gender? I thought that both men and women were stereotyped in the paper. Certainly we have had influential male leaders who have advocated non-violence, conciliation, collaboration, etc. e.g. Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, and so on. We also have examples of militant female leaders, and I don't think you can talk about feminism without including militant feminism. That's in there too. And we have had community organizing efforts dominated by women, such as the Welfare Right s Organization (WRO), which does not fit the model of feminist organizing pictured in the paper. (Granted that George Wiley was an important figure in WRO organizing, but many women also played key roles in WRO.) The authors mention that Heather Booth broke away from the IAF because of insensitivity to women. OK. But how about the model of community organizing that Heather Booth went on to champion with Citizen Action? You want to argue that that is not women-centered organizing. Granted. But the paper seemed to suggest that women, because of their gender socialization, own certain core values and ways of thinking and relating which is expressed in their organizing model. And similarly for men. I am not arguing that there are no gender differences; only that when goals are comparable, these differences are not always so clear.

Perhaps enough said. A response as long as another paper seems unwarranted.

Stan Wenocur School of Social Work University of Maryland at Baltimore

[Full citations for some of the sources above are:

Mary Beth Rogers Cold anger : a story of faith and power politics Denton, Tex. : University of North Texas Press, 1990.

Hanna, Mark G. Strategies for community empowerment : direct-action and transformative approaches to social change practice / Mark G. Hanna and Buddy Robinson. Lewiston, N.Y. : Mellen, c1994.

Wendy Plotkin, COMM-ORG] ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 13:03:28 CDT Posted by Kevin Harris <U-KHARRIS@bss2.umd.edu>

As a community organizer, I have been enjoying the discussions on COMM-ORG greatly, and some of the papers, in particular Stoecker's piece on community development corporations, have helped me immensely in understanding some of the dynamics occurring in the neighborhood in which I work.

I also understand the need to apply a theoretical analysis to this work. However, if a community organizer like myself (who also happens to be getting a Masters in Community Planning), can't understand the text of these comments, then I question their applicability to real-live community organizers. I certainly don't understand "ideal type, "rational abstruction", "structurationist", and "social constructivist" and am certain that the majority of my colleagues don't either. Neither would the residents in the community that I'm working.

If we're really striving to connect the academic community with community organizers, then we really need to be able to understand each other. Don't put the burden on us organizers to go do research on the above-mentioned theories before we can understand your papers. I would ask that those with greater intellectual abilities take a few extra moments to deconstruct their theories so that us plain-folk can hang in here.

Thanks for considering my views.

Kevin ********************************************************************** Kevin Harris phone: 301-405-6635 Urban Studies and Planning Program fax: 301-314-9897 1117 Lefrak Hall e-mail:u-kharris@bss2.umd.edu University of Maryland College Park, Maryland 20742-2885

********************************************************************** ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 15 Jun 1996 15:30:45 CDT Posted by Roberta Tipton <GEOGFR@aol.com>

Just looked over the last few comments relating to terminology and "intellectual" vs "practical" and unfortunately for you :-) felt obligated to comment. I think it's important to define terms so everyone understands the verbal ground rules and that it is important to utilize both intellectual and practical processes. I work in a situation where there are many things I could train a monkey to do but it requires some theory to know when the task needs doing, why it needs doing and what format should be used (brainer vs no-brainer) :-)

Please excuse my interuption. I get a lot of interesting info from this board that I do use in my job which isn't exactly community organizing as most of u would define it.

Roberta Tipton Altadena, CA ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 21:58:28 CDT

[1] Posted by MICKEY LAURIA <MYLUR@jazz.ucc.uno.edu>

I realized in reading my own reply to Dreier, that it may be interpreted to be an argument against the type of communicative efforts that Wendy and Randy are calling for on COMM-ORG. Let me be clear, that I am not arguing against such efforts. I applaud them when approached in such civil fashion. What I was trying to do is point out a potential pitfall to be avoided in doing so and to indicate that Dreier's accusatory ... (postmodern)-baiting style was uncalled for, inappropriate, and unacceptable on a scholarly listserv like COMM-ORG.

Mick

Mickey Lauria, Professor and Director Division of Urban Research and Policy Studies College of Urban and Public Affairs University of New Orleans New Orleans, Louisiana 70148 Office: 504-286-7106 Home: 504-486-3560 Fax: 504-286-6272 Email: Mylur@uno.edu

[2] Posted by David C. Hammack <dch3@po.cwru.edu>

In response to the postings of Peter Dreier, Mickey Lauria and Wendy Plotkin, I think it should be said that disagreement about the terms of discussion is to be expected in seminar discussions even if the participants are limited to academics, even more so if the participants include academics who are also engaged as practitioners, and still more if participants include full-time practitioners. The open nature of internet discussions almost ensures that participants will bring different and sometimes incompatible assumptions and purposes with them. All can benefit from the exchange, though no doubt from time to time some will be disappointed (or worse). In my view Wendy has done an admirable -- indeed a model -- job of managing this internet seminar.

David C. Hammack Professor of History Case Western Reserve University (216)368-2671

[3] Posted by Stan Johnson <stanjj@mindspring.com>

What concerns me more than the terminology on this list amongst scholars, is what I perceive as a lack of direct community contact ... and here I can only speak to the southeast region which I cover as an organizer with Alabama ARISE and as a coalition member with the Southeast Economic Justice Network. Case in point, Saturday on the campus of University of Alabama at Birmingham the Citizens for Transit Coalition conducted a half day (8:30-1:00) Action Planning Retreat. Only one scholar/activist showed up to participate with the over 100 community folks (most who were working poor and physically challenged who depend on public transportation) and he was not from a university in the Birmingham area (Auburn -150 miles away).

This post is not to be critical of scholars involved in this list. We in the struggle need to constantly keep each other strong with appreciation and encouragement. However, the need for more scholar/activist is badly needed. Organizers, community folk and your "theory" all will benefit. There is a gulf between cutting edge community organizing on the "trench level" and what's being discussed on this list. Most importantly the young people you are teaching will benefit from your non-vicarious participation with grassroots folk and the pulse of the movement.

Peace, Stan Johnson Alabama Arise <stanjj@mindspring.com> <http://www.mindspring.com/~stanjj/arise.html> ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 16 Jun 1996 23:32:02 CDT Posted by Wendy Plotkin <u13972@uicvm.uic.edu>

In his comments on the Stoecker/Stall paper, Stan Wenocur (SWENOCUR@SSW2.AB.UMD.EDU) mentioned an article in _The Journal of Community Practice_. [These and the other comments are available by sending e-mail to listserv@uicvm.uic.edu with the message: GET ALINSKY COMMENTS]

Earlier in the seminar, Stan had commented on the _Journal_:

As you can see, the Journal of Community Practice is fairly new. It is getting better all the time. It is put by Haworth Press Inc, 10 Alice Street, Binghamton, NY 13904-7981. I would encourage authors writing about community organizing, community planning, development, and such to consider submission of articles. Subscriptions are $36.00 a year, with discount for members of the Association for Community Organization and Social Administration (ACOSA).

Manuscript authors should request "Instructions for Authors" from Editor, Journal of Community Practice, Dr. Marie Weil, Professor, School of Social Work, CB#3550, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3550.

He now adds the following:

Manuscripts are usually 15-18 pages double-spaced; they should have a cover page indicating only the article title (used for anonymous refereeing), and the ABSTRACT. Second "title page": enclose a regular title page but do not staple it to the manuscript. Include the title again, plus: full authorship, a 100 word abstract, 5 or 6 key words to identify article content, an introductory footnote with author info. To insure return of your manuscript include a 9X 12 SASE and a regular SASE (envelope) so the editor can send you an "acknowledgement of receipt" letter. Manuscript style genrally should conform to the publication Manual of the American Psychological Association, third edition, 1983. Double space the reference section.

I appreciate Stan's providing this additional information.

Wendy Plotkin COMM-ORG ======================================================================== Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1996 16:05:38 CDT Posted by William A Treadwell <wtread@scf.usc.edu>

Having been behind in my readings for this seminar, I had the opportunity to read, in a single setting, COMMUNITY ORGANIZING OR ORGANIZING COMMUNITY? GENDER AND THE CRAFTS OF EMPOWERMENT and all of the comments to date.

Interesting, nothing like a little conflict to get the juices flowing.

The well-versed editorial digs between academia and applied perspectives provide an interesting interpetation of the macro models -- Alinskyism vs women-centered organizing-- presented in Randy Stoecker and Susan Stall's community organizing paper.

Through the "men's attacking" discourse style as presented by professor's Peter Dreier and Mickey Lauria, I see examples of Alinskyite language and power forces attempting to shape community discourse, with recruits volunteeringly chiming in on either side. Then to abate the polemic war, in steps the soothing, patching, healing mediation effort between the duelers of discourse -- Wendy Plotkin and her women-centered approach.

It appears in my mind's eye I have witnessed the played out roles presented in the Alinsky and women-centered models. Nothing like a practical illustration of theory.

Thank you all for this round of enlightenment.

William A. Treadwell School of Public Administration University of Southern California

[For the new members of the seminar, to obtain the Stall/Stoecker paper, the comments, and additional material, aim your WWW browser at http://h-net.msu.edu/~urban/comm-org/alinsky or send e-mail to listserv@uicvm.uic.edu with the message: GET ALINSKY PACKAGE

-- W. Plotkin, COMM-ORG] ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 11:50:13 CDT Posted by Randy Stoecker <rstoeck@pop3.UTOLEDO.EDU>

I want to respond to the interesting comments that have been offered on "Community Organizing or Organizing Community" by Susan Stall and me. There are so many interesting thoughts, it is difficult to organize a response, and I will not be able to respond to everything, but I will try to respond to the main themes. I am not speaking for Susan here, only myself (Susan is brand new to e-mail and not "on-line" yet and welcomed me to provide an individual response--she may respond at a later date).

Perhaps this is also a good spot to provide some background on the paper, especially given Mickey Lauria's questions about our "method." We actually didn't set out to conduct a sophisticated study. After a number of conversations over a number of years, we finally decided to write out some of our thoughts. We chose to call the two models "ideal types" following 19th century sociologist Max Weber, who basically argued that, as an analyst, you take all the qualities of all the instances of some thing (in one of our cases, Alinsky-style organizing) and determine what all the sufficient and necessary characteristics are. Then you use that "ideal type" -- that contains every characteristic -- as a yardstick against which to compare all the instances you observe. So we decided to see if we could construct ideal types of each model, and illustrate them with examples we knew of. Susan drafted the women-centered model sections and I drafted the Alinsky model sections and then we put them together (which may account for some of the inconsistencies Mickey Lauria notes). We actually have a MUCH longer (90 pages or so) version of this paper, in rough draft form, that attempts to analyze four recent cases -- one which we see as close to the ideal type women-centered model, one we see as close to the ideal type Alinsky model, and two cases that we see as mixing the models. I'll be happy to e-mail the draft to anyone who is brave enough to try and download the monster.

This leads to a question raised by Peter Dreier, and to an extent by Mickey Lauria's class. Should we separate the two out like that? Does it set up straw persons? Does separating the models out confuse or clarify? Well, of course, we wouldn't have separated them out if we didn't think doing so at least helped us to think about them. Separating out the models exposes each of their weaknesses, and provides a better opportunity to think about what their parts are and how to combine them. We are trying to make explicit how those who follow parts of the models might think. Is it helpful, for an organizer, to think about whether they are following a model that assumes people are self-interested, and what the strategic implications of that might be? (organizers, please chime in and let us know).

Underlying this is Stanley Wenocur's concern that we are being "essentialist" (arguing that there are essential fundamental differences between men and women that lead to different organizing styles). Stanley notes that there are women who have been confrontational and men who have been more relational. I think part of the problem here is the confusion over what is sex and what is gender (I still freak every time I get a survey that asks me for my "gender" and then only gives me "male" and "female"). We are certainly NOT arguing there is something in men's and women's biological make-ups ("sex") that causes different organizing styles. We are arguing that girls generally receive different social training (gender) from boys, and that matters in all things, including organizing styles. We also know that not everyone is socialized according to the rules, that people can unsocialize and resocialize themselves. Men can be feminine. Women can be masculine. Both can be both.

Our argument that the models are gendered is important, to us, because just as feminist psychology has shown that men who are too masculine or women who are too feminine are each incomplete pers onalities, so too might be organizing styles that are too one-sided. Here I appreciate both Michael Byrd's and David Swain's examples. The differences do seem to exist, and they do seem to be gendered in some way. And I disagree with Stanley Wenocur that the most telling analysis would be to compare groups with similar goals, except done by men in one case and women in another (men's vs. women's consciousness-raising groups, for example). Our argument is not just that people are gendered, but that what people do is gendered. Thus, goals are gendered. Political campaigns (Stanley's other example), in their goals, follow at least one part of the Alinsky model--it's zero-sum power--you either win or lose. While the candidate's gender may make some difference in the organizing process, the game is already organized from a "masculine" assumption, and that is going to make men and women similar campaigners, regardless of the influence of their individual genders. I think we need to look at different organizing processes (distinguished not just on the basis of whether they are done by women or men, but on the basis of the extent to which they fit one, or combine both, of the types) and see if there are different outcomes.

There is a final question in the general area of whether the separation is appropriate -- whether it even matters to talk about Alinsky any more. I am intrigued by the comments of both Peter Dreier and Stanley Wenocur, both of whom seemed to read the paper as if it were about the IAF. It's not. We only refer to the IAF in two places, and then it is the 1960-70s IAF, not the church and family model dominant in the IAF today. One of my concerns, and Susan is thankfully such a tolerant soul that she has humored me throughout our collaboration on this paper, is that too few people seem to lend any legitimacy to the ALINSKY model anymore, even though groups across the country -- from the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative to Justice for Janitors -- still use pieces of it. I agree with Frances Fox Piven and Richard Cloward (see their book, _Poor Peoples Movements_), who argue that poor folks really have only one thing to bargain with -- their compliance. Thus, for me, the threat of disruption is always important if poor folks are going to get any influence. And this is what Alinsky was best at. As to Mickey's concern that we are making Alinsky too central to the development of the model, when from a "structurationist" perspective history is not made by a few great men, but by all kinds of people each shaping or "structuring" reality in small ways that add up, yes, he's correct. We chose, for purposes of clarity, to look at Alinsky's version of Alinsky's model. And as the others' responses have shown, the further we move away from Alinsky, the more muddied the waters become.

And then we come to the practical questions, which I always see as the most important (though I don't think they can be answered without also looking at the more theoretical issues). As David Swain queried, is the Alinsky approach part and parcel of the 1960s, and inappropriate in these changing times? Way back at the beginning of the seminar when we were talking about social movements, I think (I'm not sure) one of the concepts that may have come up is "political opportunity structure" (POS). The "POS" is literally a framework for analyzing what opportunities are available to an insurgent group. Are there political allies? Are there funders? Is there a unified or fragmented government? All crucial questions for organizers. But, as my work has shown (see the book _Defending Community_), the game is lopsided but not one-sided. The POS doesn't just set limits. Activists, with just the right strategy, can in fact transform the POS. The trick is figuring out what the right strategy is. So David Swain's questions about whether the shift away from Alinsky signals a rejection of radical change can also be a question of what works in a given POS. Could a return to Alinsky work now? Would it help re-radicalize people, or would it make them reactionary?

Interestingly, for me, the example that best expresses real radical change that has lasted is Cedar-Riverside (again, see _Defending Community_). This community not only fought off one of those mean old developers, but it remains a strong alternative community built on housing and commercial co-ops. Cedar-Riverside is one of the "mixed models" Susan and I use in our mega-paper.

What excites me as an "academic" are the research questions the paper generated. We mean our paper to be the first word on the issue, not the last, and the questions David Swain and Mickey Lauria raise, I think, are the next steps.

From David Swain:

"At what level are these types most evident and important? At the tactical level, the strategic level, or the mission/vision level?"

And from Mickey Lauria:

"This leads to a potentially interesting project -How do the existing schools plus some sample of independent organizing institutions measure up to this typology?"

And I can't close without a response (I feel like Bill Clinton, unable to finally shut up) to Peter Dreier's comment that community organizing "adds up to" so little, and is partly the result of community organizers having no way to get together. I think he is wrong on both counts. We could probably spend lots of time arguing about what is "a little" vs. what is "a lot" but when groups like COPS can control over half of San Antonio's CDBG budget through the 1980s, Cedar-Riverside can get a whole neighborhood redeveloped, the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative can eliminate dumping from their neighborhood (and I could go on and on), that adds up pretty quickly. The problem is measuring the success of community organizing -- how do you measure getting rid of an illegal dump? How do you measure preventing unwanted development? These kinds of successes are uncountable. There are also many ways that organizers get together, the most interesting to date being the National Organizers Alliance (NOA)(715 G Street, SE, Washington DC 20003) that brings 100's of organizers together every year for the last couple of years.

The problem is not that organizing hasn't accomplished much, and that organizers haven't coordinated their efforts. It is that those of us who could tell their stories have been busy doing other stuff and consequently, no one knows what organizing has accomplished. Only in the last couple of years, when some academics have finally gotten over the reality that "the movement" of the sixties is history, have we begun to tell the stories of the down-and-dirty-in-the-trenches kind of community organizing that was virtually ignored as the essential glue even for "the movement" (Medoff and Sklar's _Streets of Hope_, Rabrenovic's _Community Builders_, Kling and Posner's _Dilemmas of Activism_, Fisher's _Let the People Decide_, Stoecker's _Defending Community_, Woliver's _From Outrage to Action_, and Morris's _Origins of the Civil Rights Movement_). But these cases have not been connected, and few theoretical models have been developed from them (I've tried, but I'm not sure I'm happy with the results--see _The Sociological Quarterly_, Vol 36, No. 1). Thus, there is not a "body" of academic literature on community organizing -- you don't get much when you do a subject search. Building a body of literature can lead to theories, studies of effectiveness, and hopefully produce information that can inform practice AND legitimize the practice. The COMM-ORG list is, next to NOA, the best way to begin to bring together those who make stories (organizers) and those who get paid to tell stories (academics) to end the cultural blackout on the reality, accomplishments, and frustrations of community organizing. Our paper is one offering toward that goal.

Thanks to all for the interesting thoughts that we can use to continue our thinking, and I hope yours. I welcome continued discussion if anyone wants to pursue it.

Randy Stoecker Associate Professor of Sociology Research Associate in Urban Affairs Department of Sociology, Anthropology, Social Work University of Toledo Toledo, OH 43606 419-530-4975 (office) 419-530-8406 (fax) rstoeck@pop3.utoledo.edu (e-mail)

"Community Before Capital"

[Ed: Citations for the books mentioned above include:

Piven, Frances Fox. Poor people's movements : why they succeed, how they fail / by Frances Fox Piven and Richard A. Cloward. Vintage books, 1979. -------------------- Stoecker, Randy Defending community : the struggle for alternative redevelopment in Cedar-Riverside / Randy Stoecker. Temple University Press, 1994. Series: Conflicts in urban and regional development -------------------- Fisher, Robert, Let the People Decide: Neighborhood Organizing in America Twayne Publishers, 1994 (Updated Edition) -------------------- Medoff, Peter Streets of hope : the fall and rise of an urban neighborhood / Peter Medoff and Holly Sklar. South End Press, c1994. -------------------- Rabrenovic, Gordana Community builders : a tale of neighborhood mobilization in two cities / Gordana Rabrenovic. Temple Universtiy Press, 1996. Series: Conflicts in urban and regional development -------------------- Dilemmas of activism : class, community, and the politics of local mobilization / edited by Joseph M. Kling and Prudence S. Posner. Temple University Press, 1990. -------------------- Woliver, Laura R. From outrage to action : the politics of grass-roots dissent / Laura R. Woliver. University of Illinois Press, c1993. -------------------- Morris, Aldon D. The origins of the civil rights movement : Black communities organizing for change / Aldon D. Morris. Free Press ; Collier Macmillan, c1984. --------------------

-- W. Plotkin, COMM-ORG] ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 13:05:43 CDT Posted by Michael Byrd <byrd@library.vanderbilt.edu>

It seems timely -- since we are in the midst of a discussion of Alinsky and the Industrial Areas Foundation's efforts -- to mention that this week a Nashville newspaper published a cover story highlighting the work of Tying Nashville Together (TNT), an IAF-supported organization. The story (entitled "Away From the Storm: Making Peace at the Neighborhood Justice Center") concerns a mediation center here that is "operated" by TNT and funded by the metropolitan government. Its primary focus is on a recent dispute between a Korean merchant and residents in the surrounding African American neighborhood.

For those who are interested in community-based organizing, this article provides a fascinating look into the role that a local IAF-affilated group plays within metropolitan and neighborhood politics.

You can reach this story on the WWW by pointing your web-browser to:

http://www.nashscene.com

[Ed: See also the interesting article on Southern black churches in the Civil Rights movement at the same site. -- W.P., COMM-ORG]

Michael Byrd Religion, Ethics, & Society Vanderbilt University

In New Orleans I heard a catfish shout and I asked that cat what it was all about. He said, "C'mon man, let me straighten you out: Parlez vous creole? Laissez les bons temps roule, oui." - - Memphis Slim ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 15:19:56 CDT Posted by Marshall Louis Ganz <ganz@wjh.harvard.edu>

Why do you think people weren't too "busy" to tell the stories of the civil rights movement, women's movement, environmental movement, right to life movement, conservative evangelical movement - but couldn't find the time to tell the story of what community organizing has "added up to"? And who are the story tellers whose telling of the story really counts?

Marshall Ganz Harvard University ======================================================================== Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 11:18:33 CDT Posted by Randy Stoecker <rstoeck@pop3.UTOLEDO.EDU>

Marshall Louis Ganz asks some important questions:

> Why do you think people weren't too "busy" to tell the stories of the > civil rights movement, women's movement, environmental movement, right > to life movement, conservative evangelical movement - but couldn't find > the time to tell the story of what community organizing has "added up > to"?

I didn't mean that we were "too" busy to tell the stories of community organizing. We have just chosen to tell stories about things that were "bigger" (trans.--easier to sell). Civil Rights, women's, anti-war, and other movements were "big." Community organizing isn't and so isn't valued by editors, publishers, and thus also not by researchers. The total accomplishments of all those little organizing efforts together probably amounts to alot, but they always occur in such tiny chunks that it's hard to get anyone to pay attention.

> And who are the story tellers whose telling of the story really > counts?

This second question is even more interesting. I don't know how to answer it in the abstract, only in terms of what I've tried to do. I try as much as possible to do research from a "collaborative" or "participatory" research perspective. I get paid to study stuff -- organizers (when they get paid at all) get paid to organize and community action participants rarely get paid at all. So they too often don't have time to tell their stories. What I try to do is work with them to learn how they want to tell their story, proceed to try to tell it back to them, get feedback from them, and keep working on it until we all agree it's an accurate and good story. Implied in Marshall's question is that it would probably be better for the communities to tell their own stories, and I agree. I try to do what I can to facilitate their telling of their stories when the alternative is noone will ever hear it if I don't (see Volume 23 #4 and Volume 24 #1 of The American Sociologist).

Randy Stoecker Associate Professor of Sociology, Research Associate in Urban Affairs Department of Sociology, Anthropology, Social Work University of Toledo Toledo, OH 43606

phone 419-530-4975 fax 419-530-8406

"Community Before Capital" ===================================================================== Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 14:21:00 CDT

[Ed: In an earlier comment on the lack of involvement of scholars in some community organizing efforts, Stan Johnson alluded to his work as an organizer with Alabama ARISE and as a coalition member with the Southeast Economic Justice Network.

I asked for more information on Alabama ARISE and the Network. He sent the following on ARISE, and promised additional information on the Network.

I am including a portion of the description, so that it's on the official "record," but Stan has created a splendid set of links to WWW resources on all aspects of social justice and equality. Those who asked earlier about Internet resources on poverty will find many resources at this site, as will others interested in welfare and social reform, the Children's Defense Fund, and socio-economic census information.

-- WP, COMM-ORG]

Posted by Stan Johnson <stanjj@mindspring.com>

Check out http://www.mindspring.com/~stanjj/arise.html for a screen or two on ARISE.

Peace, Stan Johnson

[Here's the overview of ALABAMA ARISE. A question that arises as a historian is the relationship of ALABAMA ARISE to the U.S. "Great Society" grassroots movements of the 1960s and early 1970s in Alabama, such as those funded by the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO).

Are these the same organizers, thirty years later? Their offspring? Is there a difference in the class, race and gender of those organizing?

How have the intervening years affected the strategy and issues of Alabama organizers -- and are the state-level organizers the same ones who organize at the community level?

-- W. Plotkin, COMM-ORG]

Historical Overview

In November, 1988, leaders of 32 religious, social and civic groups converged in the lobby of the State House in Montgomery. They announced formation of a new statewide network of volunteers, dedicated to passing legislation that would benefit low-income citizens of Alabama.

They named the coalition Alabama Arise .

Spokeswoman Sarah Price announced that Alabama Arise Would speak up for people who are usually overlooked by politicians. "They want poor people to help them get into office, she said, "and they come to our neighborhoods and tell us all these great things during elections that they forget once they are elected. We are not the people with the greatest money, but with the greatest need."

A New Vision For Alabama

Alabama Arise is now a viable and respected grassroots coalition of 95 organizations from all parts of the state. During the Legislature's 1990 session Alabama Arise helped win the first benefit increase for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) in 14 years, an increase of 5%. The next year's efforts brought a 16% increase, as did the next, putting Alabama on track to reach the southeastern average after two more increases. No longer do Alabama's poorest mothers and children receive the lowest benefits in the nation.

In 1991, after some 50 Arise member groups contacted Governor Hunt, Alabama Arise was offered a seat on the Governor's Task Force on Tax and Education Reform. At 22 tax reform workshops that fall and spring, Arise members reached consensus on removing low-income Alabamians from income tax rolls, taking the sales tax off groceries, and increasing property taxes, which fall harder on wealthy people.

Alabama Arise finds its strength in its extensive network of "citizen lobbyists." When priority legislation comes up for a vote, Arise mobilizes its members in counties throughout the state to call or write their legislators.

Unlike the big-money lobbyists at the State House, Arise Legislative Coordinator Jim Littleton can't wine and dine the legislators. His access depends on whether they have heard from constituents --- Arise members in their home districts.

1996: A Challenging Agenda

Alabama Arise chooses its legislative agenda at an annual membership meeting. For 1996, on November 18, 1995 Arise held its annual membership meeting at St. John African Methodist Episcopal Church in Montgomery, Alabama. Three issues emerged as the group consensus for 1996:

Welfare Reform in 1996 -- People want to work. Alabama should reduce their obstacles by creating new jobs, training people, and making their child care, health care and transportation affordable. Time spent on welfare should provide for the children's needs and increase the adult's capacity to move into employment.

Education Reform -- Arise will work with education reformers to support efforts to expand programs for child readiness. All children should enter school ready to learn. Alabama has model programs in some places, but Gov. James's 1995 education reform package had no child readiness provisions.

A "Prosperity Plan" would be developed to encompass visionary policy changes that would bring the full benefits of a strong economy and a good life to all Alabamians, rich and poor. The Prosperity Plan could include sweeping tax reform, education reform, and economic reforms, such as an increase in the minimum wage and proposals to create jobs.

How Can Organizations Get Involved ?

Member organizations sign the Memorandum of Understanding , which outlines rights and responsibilities of member groups. When it joins Alabama Arise, an organization agrees

<*> to participate in choosing Board members and legislative priorities, striving to be sensitive to deeply held beliefs of individual organizations;

<*> to contribute a membership fee ranging from $100 to $500, based on ability to pay;

<*> to commit organizational resources, especially human resources for phone calls and visits, to the lobbying effort;

<*> to use the name of Alabama Arise only for priority issues chosen by the Arise membership. However, member organizations may lobby independently on other issues.

<*> A "Memorandum of Understanding" is signed by all member groups. ====================================================================== Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 14:01:21 CDT From: Wendy Plotkin <U13972@UICVM.BITNET>

[Ed: I asked Roberta, who previously commented on the "language" controversy, for additional information about her own involvement in organizing. Roberta said it was okay to share this with COMM-ORG.]

-- W. Plotkin, COMM-ORG]

Posted by Roberta Tipton <GEOGFR@aol.com>

I'm afraid I'm going to be a great disappointment to you. My training is in foreign languages and geography; however, my current employment involves veterinary medicine. I am the hospital manager and the registered veterinary technician in a veterinary hospital. . . Our hospital is a neighborhood within a neighborhood. In terms of monkey training it boils down to [the fact that] I can probably train almost anyone to put in an intravenous catheter but will they know when the catheter is needed, why it is needed, which catheter should be used, which vein should be used etc.?

Many of our clients work for Cal-Tech and/or Jet Propulsion Laboratory. We're pretty good at determining which clients are scientists/engineers etc. and which are the ones having to deal with the real world. It's not meant to be a put down. There's just a difference. Language and communication can be very tiring. They can also be fun. New words and concepts are interesting. Too many people want everything spelled out in 3 letter words and 3 word sentences with pictures because then they don't have to think. Sometimes its important to learn new words/concepts to stretch your mind and point you in directions you hadn't thought about previously.

Sorry, it's the English teacher in me plus I work with a bunch of students (not necessarily pre-vet) who haven't a clue about geography, politics, literature (did u know that there is indecision in our clinic about whether there are 51 states or 52 states? The 51 stater is a high school grad -- I think -- while the 52 stater is a Phi Beta Kappa college grad.)....I try to spend time not only making sure they care for our patients and clients properly but that they stretch their minds and learn new things about their neighborhood, community, county, and on up the line to the world. Does that make me an organizer? I doubt it :-)

Thanks for lending the soapbox. Think of this as a little reality check that bounced :-)

Roberta Tipton Altadena, CA ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 09:26:58 CDT Posted by Donald Voth <dvoth@comp.uark.edu>

This refers to Randy Stoecker's recent posting about why the story of community organizing doesn't get told.

There are two other reasons why the story of community organizing, or even participatory community develoment--as distinct from smokestack chasing--doesn't get told. First, the culture of the community organizing of the 1960's had an almost ideological aversion to talking analytically about what it was doing. Second, with the rare exceptions of people like Randy, no one has a professional interest in doing so. Community organizing is the work of generalists and community people, they don't need to publish or create documents with schemes, paradigms, strategies, etc. in order to get attention and/or business. Planners, social workers, architects, etc., all do have such an interest, but it is what they do that they need to write about, not what community people do. Even the stories that do get told are profoundly affected by the latter. There is strong pressure for the professionals telling the stories to achieve a certain product identification, by each creating his or her own unique jargon. So, we have collaborative planning, Adaptive Management, Participatory Rural Appraisal, Self-Help, etc., etc., most of which share a very common core of basic, local, community organizing, but a core that is obscured by the desire to appear to be unique and new.

Don Voth, University of Arkansas ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 10:24:20 CDT Posted by Wendy Plotkin <U13972@uicvm.uic.edu>

I'd like to respond to Stan Johnson's comment on the absence of University of Alabama scholars at a recent demonstration in support of transportation facilities for the disabled. I'm not sure if I agree with Stan's argument that scholars should feel obligated to be present at these demonstrations.

I'll have to call on those more familiar with the literature on community organizing for scholarly literature on what turns a citizen into a community organizer. I'd guess that there are different catalysts for organizing -- crises that call out otherwise quiescent citizens, as well as individual interests and tendencies that lead one to spend one's time in demonstrating for social justice and stable, diverse communities. (*)

As an academic, I'd argue that it is not a "cop-out" or a retreat to the "ivory tower" to stay behind the scenes and contribute to the community in other ways. These other ways include research and writing that contribute factual evidence to the efforts of community organizers -- e.g. increasing levels of income inequality, inequitable distribution of municipal and other services, the continued existence of racial discrimination. Facts are powerful persuaders, and they take time to accumulate.

More conceptual type of academic work is useful in tracing trends and identifying longer term forces that are invisible to the immediate understanding, such as the impact of communications technology on local communities, or of the automobile on the atmosphere over the Antarctic.

This defense of work that is intellectual in nature and/or inside of universities is not an argument against attempts to ensure that the university is not a bastion of social and economic elitism. One of the ways in which the university can stifle social reform is by ignoring service to the community in its reward structure -- instead, rewarding ONLY research, and research free from preconceived ideas of its contribution to reform. Rather than belabor the point, I'll refer to the earlier paper by Ira Harkavy and John Puckett, "Lessons from Hull House for the Contemporary University." (If you're not familiar with the paper, send e-mail to listserv@uicvm.uic.edu with the message: GET HULL LESSONS or for the paper AND accompanying materials, aim your WWW browser at http://h-net.msu.edu/~urban/comm-org/hull.)

Research tasks and skills do not need to be limited to the university or university-trained types. Attempts to transfer these skills to organizers include the publications of Urban Planning Aid in the 1970s, manuals such as "Open the Books: How To Research a Corporation" (1974) and "People Before Property: A Real Estate Primer and Research Guide" (1972). Urban Planning Aid, a defunct community-oriented consulting firm in Boston in the 1970s and early 1980s, is described in document obtained by sending e-mail to listserv@uicvm.uic.edu with the message: GET UPA ARCHIVES.

Even with the availability of this type of training, some individuals are more suited and interested in public speaking and appearances, and others to less public types of activity. Overall, I'll argue that each individual should be allowed to contribute to the community in the way that is most consistent with his/her personality.

Wendy Plotkin COMM-ORG

* The division of the community into "leaders" and "followers" of various kinds is described in an interesting way in the fifty year old classic, BLACK METROPOLIS, by Horace Cayton and St. Clair Drake, a work I'm using in my dissertation research. In describing "Bronzeville," Chicago's African-American neighborhood created from the discriminatory housing policies in early and mid-20th century Chicago, the sociologists wrote:

The average person in Bronzeville is primarily interested in `staying alive,' `getting ahead,' `having a good time' and `praising the Lord.' Conscious preoccupation with `racial advancement' is fitful and sporadic, though always latent. The masses leave `the burden of The Race' to those individuals who are oriented around `service' -- the Race Leaders. Some of these are people who devote much of their leisure time to charitable organizations or associations for racial advancement. For others solving the race problem is a full-time job. For instance, a score or so of individuals in Bronzeville are elected and appointed politicians who `represent the Race.' There are also a few civic leaders who earn their living by administering social agencies such as the Urban League, the YMCA, the YWCA, settlement houses, and similar organizations. In Bronzeville, too, there are numerous `self-appointed leaders' -- men and women, often illiterate and poverty-stricken, who feel the call `to lead The Race out of bondage.'

Horace Cayton and St. Clair Drake, BLACK METROPOLIS, Harcourt Brace & Co., New York: 1945, 392.

It strikes me that allowing for some differences due to culture and chronological period, this categorization would apply to many U.S. neighborhoods, and to residents of all races. ====================================================================== Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 17:54:11 CDT Posted by Ashwani Vasishth <vasishth@scf.usc.edu>

I found Roberta Tipton's comment to the Comm-Org discussion very refreshing and quite useful in sorting out issues of community boundaries and associations, and of the strength and limits of the containment imposed by naming a community. I think this may be beacuse Roberta's work forces a different definition of community. You may be familiar with Thomas Kuhn's 1962 _Structure of Scientific Revolutions_. For all the disagreement around his ideas, the core conception of how (scientific) communities (of people and of ideas) take shape and change and interact, are fundamentally sound I think. Change is a marginal, occasional, emergent, and contingent thing, and interactions are its medium even as information and relations are the means. And community is very much an emergent property of relationships. Then community organizing for change, in some general sense at least, is about making systematic and systemic arrangements of relationships (between ideas, people, places), creating resources for change where there seemed to be none.

I'd submit that what Roberta is doing _is_ community organizing--but only if she chooses to see it that way, of course (weren't there a couple of psychologists who argued love was when you said it was?).

regards, Ashwani Vasishth vasishth@usc.edu (213) 737-7875 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- School of Urban and Regional Planning, VKC 351 University of Southern California Los Angeles, CA 90089 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ===================================================================== Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 21:27:34 CDT

Posted by Marshall Louis Ganz <ganz@wjh.harvard.edu>

In response to my question as to why the story of community organizing hasn't been told, Randy replied:

>I didn't mean that we were "too" busy to tell the stories of > community organizing. We have just chosen to tell stories > about things that were "bigger" (trans.--easier to sell). > Civil Rights, women's, anti-war, and other movements were > "big." Community organizing isn't and so isn't valued by > editors, publishers, and thus also not by researchers. The > total accomplishments of all those little organizing efforts > together probably amounts to alot, but they always occur in > such tiny chunks that it's hard to get anyone to pay attention.

But why aren't they easier to "sell"? Doesn't the fact other stories were - and are - of greater interest reflect something about their inherent political and cultural significance? It is hard to understand how the "tiny little chunks" amount to a lot, if no one realizes they do, or even bothers to construct a credible story of how they do.

> > And who are the story tellers whose telling of the story really > > counts? > > This second question is even more interesting. I don't know how > to answer it in the abstract, only in terms of what I've tried > to do. I try as much as possible to do research from a > "collaborative" or "participatory" research perspective. I get > paid to study stuff -- organizers (when they get paid at all) get > paid to organize and community action participants rarely get > paid at all. So they too often don't have time to tell their > stories. What I try to do is work with them to learn how they > want to tell their story, proceed to try to tell it back to them, get > feedback from them, and keep working on it until we all agree > it's an accurate and good story. Implied in Marshall's > question is that it would probably be better for the communities > to tell their own stories, and I agree. I try to do what I can to > facilitate their telling of their stories when the alternative is noone > will ever hear it if I don't (see Volume 23 #4 and Volume 24 #1 of The > American Sociologist).

My question about whose telling of the story really counts was not really about communities telling their own stories, but about why and how it comes to pass that stories like that of the civil rights movement are widely, convincingly, and credibly told whereas stories of community organizing are not. Effective social movements become vehicles through which communities not only reconstruct their own stories, but tell them to others in ways in which they can be heard.

Marshall Ganz Kennedy School of Government Sociology Department Harvard University ==================================================================== Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 08:42:16 CDT Posted by Marshall Louis Ganz <ganz@wjh.harvard.edu>

Re Don Voth's comments,

I don't know about the "generalist" theory of why the community development story hasn't been told. Gandhi, Chavez, King and others found ways to tell their stories through actions, accounts, and the help of those enlisted in the cause as "story tellers"; more often journalists than academics. I think it is true, however, that for some a culture of "localism" marginalized the value of interpreting one's organizing work by placing it in a larger context.

Marshall Ganz Kennedy School of Government Sociology Department Harvard University ======================================================================== 34 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 12:24:30 CDT Posted by Bruce A. Nissen <bnissen@indiana.edu>

Regarding Marshall Ganz's postings about why community organizing stories don't get told:

I really think it is about the "localism" of most of these stories. Editors at journal and presses are quite skeptical about the worth of such stories because they are seen as of significance only locally.

I recently published a book, *Fighting For Jobs: Case Studies of Labor-Community Coalitions Confronting Plant Closings* (SUNY Press, 1995), and the biggest objection I received throughout the effort to get the book published (from referees and editors) was that these local community efforts were of little national significance.

It's much easier to get things published if I write on issues that are not tied into the local community (like workplace reorganization, etc.) than when I write on community-based events.

Do others have the same experience?

Bruce Nissen Division of Labor Studies Indiana University Northwest Gary, IN 46408 bnissen@indiana.edu ====================================================================== Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 13:12:07 CDT Posted by Fran Tobin, REACH Project <U30013@UICVM>

On the question of telling the story of community organizing:

There seems to be a suggestion that community organizing must not be important if enough people have not told the story or found a market for publication.

There is an inherent limit to the marketability of a story which is so diverse in its form and content. "The Civil Rights Movement," perceived (wrongly, in my view) as a single movement with a few charismatic, identifiable leaders has a relatively easy message/appeal. Witness the wide use of "Alinskyism" to describe so many varied organizing efforts as evidence of the apparent human need to neatly package a story. General media, whether newspapers or books, routinely seek an icon to both explain AND avoid complexity.

Fran Tobin REACH Project ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 28 Jun 1996 14:25:12 CDT Posted by Marshall Louis Ganz <ganz@wjh.harvard.edu>

To Bruce Nissen,

But why aren't they of national significance? A fight by Christian evangelicals to ban the teaching of evolution and resistance to busing by numerous local groups in the 1970s were, the picketing of abortion clinics is, even major strikes at some key plants have been? Is it a question of location or significance?

Marshall Ganz ======================================================================== Date: Mon, 1 Jul 1996 19:18:40 CDT Posted by Marshall Louis Ganz <ganz@wjh.harvard.edu>

Fran,

I think you're letting yourself off the hook. If your organizing is making a real difference then communicating what you are doing in such a way that people understand the difference it is making is very important - in fact, its part of making the difference which organizers claim they want to make. The story of the civil rights movement was widely told not because it was a "simple" story, but because it was an important one, and one which worked at telling its story through its actions, celebrations, and words.

Marshall Ganz Kennedy School of Government Sociology Department Harvard University ======================================================================== Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 21:05:54 CDT Posted by Kevin Harris <U-KHARRIS@bss2.umd.edu>

I just wanted to add a little reality check on Marshall Ganz' comments. First of all, most community organizations are understaffed and overworked as it is. Most organizers don't have the time to read their own mail, much less the numerous postings on this listserv. So it's REALLY hard to justify spending lots of time documenting the difference that you're making given all the other important tasks, like long-term planning, that always get put on the back burner. Given sufficient funding and staffing, I agree that it would be preferable to have organizers tell their own story. But since that's not always possible, I for one, am happy to have someone like Randy tell the story for us.

**********************************************************************

Kevin Harris phone: 301-405-6635 Urban Studies and Planning Program fax: 301-314-9897 1117 Lefrak Hall e-mail:u-kharris@bss2.umd.edu University of Maryland College Park, Maryland 20742-2885

********************************************************************** ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 13:45:35 CDT From: Wendy Plotkin <U13972@UICVM.BITNET>

[In the following posting, I've combined Marshall Ganz's response to Kevin Harris with Marshall's introduction to the list, which I asked for as context to his comment.

The "comment" is the third paragraph, as it seemed to follow from Marshall's description of his work with the farm workers -- feel free to respond to the comment only on "taking the time" to tell the story.

I appreciate Marshall's sharing this information with COMM-ORG, and hope that others will offer similar introductions.

-- W. Plotkin, COMM-ORG]

I grew up in Bakersfield, California, where my father was a Rabbi and my mother, a teacher. I came to Harvard in 1960 as an undergraduate.

In 1963, I became involved in the civil rights movement, went to Mississippi as part of the Summer Project, discovered organizing, became an organizer for SNCC and remained in the South another year. In late 1965, I returned home one month after the grape strike began and joined Cesar Chavez. I worked with the UFW for the next 16 years, serving as organizing director and member of the national executive board. In 1981, I left the UFW and began working to develop organizing programs and train organizers within other unions, electoral politics, community organizations, issue groups, etc.- mostly in California.

In response to Kevin's concern that organizers don't have the "time" to tell the story of the difference their work makes. Don't you think that telling the story is a crucial part of making the difference? In my years with the farm workers, we told the story all the time in the work we did in farm worker communities as well as in the cities where we organized boycotts. It was woven right into our organizing work - in the content of our "raps", in the kinds of actions we undertook, in the ways in which we communicated our work to the public to gain their support for it. Pleading you don't have the time to communicate the significance of what you are doing raises the question of just what you are doing with your time. Being overworked and pressed for time is no sign of being a good organizer - nor is it the exclusive preserve of organizers. It' all a question of how you choose to use the time you have and learning to use it strategically is a challenge all of us face - especially those of us who feel passionately about the work we do.

In 1991, thinking I needed to deepen my understanding of how to make democracy work in these times - as well as reflect on my own experience - I returned to Harvard to complete the senior year I had never finished when I dropped out in the 60s. I found this to be a rewarding experience, so I did the Kennedy School mid-career MPA program the following year, and began work on a doctorate in sociology here in 1993.

At the same time, I developed a course on organizing at the Kennedy School ("Organizing: People, Power and Change") which I have taught for three years. This year I began an undergraduate version of this course as a seminar in the sociology department (Community Action Research Project). Both courses are structured around student "organizing projects" which provide the learning opportunities around which the reading, writing and discussion are built.

My current research is on the role of strategy in social movements, the role of voluntary associations in American political development, and how the disconnect between communities of identity, political institutions, and economic structures has contributed to the political mess we are in - and perhaps how to get out of it. I've also done work on the impact of the new electoral technology on the practice of politics.

Marshall Ganz Kennedy School of Government Department of Sociology Harvard University ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 16:09:11 CDT Posted by Herbert Rubin <hrubin@sun.soci.niu.edu>

Re: Story telling about community-organizations.

As an academic, I feel somewhat guilty about the time I take from community activists, in my case those doing community development, away from their work to share with me their adventures, problems, and successes. I do share my writings with those who are active, but still worry that the hour spent with me perhaps could better be spent in doing a community housing deal. Activists in the field, though, have helped alleviate my guilt. First, they explained to me the extent of their own efforts to publicize their work and explained that my writings helped this effort and were free. Second, at meetings, those who I have interviewed introduce me to others as "their scribe".

Those working in the community field have a wonderful story to tell and we should be all proud in helping them tell it.

Sincerely,

Herbert J. Rubin ******************************************************************** Herbert J. Rubin 815-753-6424 Sociology hrubin@sun.soci.niu.edu Northern Illinois University DeKalb, Illinois 60115 ********************************************************************* ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 16:28:24 CDT Posted by Bruce A. Nissen <bnissen@indiana.edu>

On Fri, 28 Jun 1996, Marshall Louis Ganz <ganz@wjh.harvard.edu> wrote:

> To Bruce Nissen, > > But why aren't they of national significance? A fight by Christian > evangelicals to ban the teaching of evolution and resistance to busing > by numerous local groups in the 1970s were, the picketing of abortion > clinics is, even major strikes at some key plants have been? Is > it a question of location or significance? > > Marshall Ganz >

Marshall, I think they are considered to not be of national significance because they do not appear to be feeding into national policy initiatives, or into "changing the public opinion climate" enough nationally to change the ever-rightward trajectory of national politics. I don't agree with the criticism that they aren't of national significance -- I'm only reporting the feedback I got.

It's not really clear to me why local struggles sometimes translate into national debates and national policy changes, and sometimes they don't. It seems to me that right now we're in a period where they usually don't; they get ignored. Why? I wish I had the answer.

Bruce Nissen Division of Labor Studies Indiana University Northwest bnissen@indiana.edu ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 17:23:53 CDT Posted by Kevin Harris <U-KHARRIS@bss2.umd.edu>

Marshall Ganz wrote:

In my years with the farm workers, we told the story all the time in the work we did in farm worker communities as well as in the cities where we organized boycotts. It was woven right into our organizing work - in the content of our "raps", in the kinds of actions we undertook, in the ways in which we communicated our work to the public to gain their support for it.

If this is what constitutes "telling the story" then I agree with Marshall that it's certainly the responsibility of the organizer to weave this "storytelling" into their work. I only meant to suggest that it's difficult to analyze and document from a theoretical perspective the work that you're doing while you're in the midst of it.

I recently returned to graduate school after 10 years of organizing to take a step back and do some thinking about the community and national level organizing that I had been doing. But interestingly enough, I received an assistantship that involved a comprehensive planning/revitalization project with a low-income community just inside the beltway in Palmer Park, Maryland (where Sugar Ray Leonard was born). So I've ended up organizing anyway, but have learned to be able to step back and gain some perspective on my work as I'm organizing. Thanks for clarifying what you meant by "telling the story."

********************************************************************** Kevin Harris phone: 301-405-6635 Urban Studies and Planning Program fax: 301-314-9897 1117 Lefrak Hall e-mail:u-kharris@bss2.umd.edu University of Maryland College Park, Maryland 20742-2885

********************************************************************** ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 13:45:35 CDT

[In the following posting, I've combined Marshall Ganz's response to Kevin Harris with Marshall's introduction to the list, which I asked for as context to his comment.

The "comment" is the third paragraph, as it seemed to follow from Marshall's description of his work with the farm workers -- feel free to respond to the comment only on "taking the time" to tell the story.

I appreciate Marshall's sharing this information with COMM-ORG, and hope that others will offer similar introductions.

-- W. Plotkin, COMM-ORG]

I grew up in Bakersfield, California, where my father was a Rabbi and my mother, a teacher. I came to Harvard in 1960 as an undergraduate.

In 1963, I became involved in the civil rights movement, went to Mississippi as part of the Summer Project, discovered organizing, became an organizer for SNCC and remained in the South another year. In late 1965, I returned home one month after the grape strike began and joined Cesar Chavez. I worked with the UFW for the next 16 years, serving as organizing director and member of the national executive board. In 1981, I left the UFW and began working to develop organizing programs and train organizers within other unions, electoral politics, community organizations, issue groups, etc.- mostly in California.

In response to Kevin's concern that organizers don't have the "time" to tell the story of the difference their work makes. Don't you think that telling the story is a crucial part of making the difference? In my years with the farm workers, we told the story all the time in the work we did in farm worker communities as well as in the cities where we organized boycotts. It was woven right into our organizing work - in the content of our "raps", in the kinds of actions we undertook, in the ways in which we communicated our work to the public to gain their support for it. Pleading you don't have the time to communicate the significance of what you are doing raises the question of just what you are doing with your time. Being overworked and pressed for time is no sign of being a good organizer - nor is it the exclusive preserve of organizers. It' all a question of how you choose to use the time you have and learning to use it strategically is a challenge all of us face - especially those of us who feel passionately about the work we do.

In 1991, thinking I needed to deepen my understanding of how to make democracy work in these times - as well as reflect on my own experience - I returned to Harvard to complete the senior year I had never finished when I dropped out in the 60s. I found this to be a rewarding experience, so I did the Kennedy School mid-career MPA program the following year, and began work on a doctorate in sociology here in 1993.

At the same time, I developed a course on organizing at the Kennedy School ("Organizing: People, Power and Change") which I have taught for three years. This year I began an undergraduate version of this course as a seminar in the sociology department (Community Action Research Project). Both courses are structured around student "organizing projects" which provide the learning opportunities around which the reading, writing and discussion are built.

My current research is on the role of strategy in social movements, the role of voluntary associations in American political development, and how the disconnect between communities of identity, political institutions, and economic structures has contributed to the political mess we are in - and perhaps how to get out of it. I've also done work on the impact of the new electoral technology on the practice of politics.

Marshall Ganz Kennedy School of Government Department of Sociology Harvard University ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 16:09:11 CDT Posted by Herbert Rubin <hrubin@sun.soci.niu.edu>

Re: Story telling about community-organizations.

As an academic, I feel somewhat guilty about the time I take from community activists, in my case those doing community development, away from their work to share with me their adventures, problems, and successes. I do share my writings with those who are active, but still worry that the hour spent with me perhaps could better be spent in doing a community housing deal. Activists in the field, though, have helped alleviate my guilt. First, they explained to me the extent of their own efforts to publicize their work and explained that my writings helped this effort and were free. Second, at meetings, those who I have interviewed introduce me to others as "their scribe".

Those working in the community field have a wonderful story to tell and we should be all proud in helping them tell it.

Sincerely,

Herbert J. Rubin ******************************************************************** Herbert J. Rubin 815-753-6424 Sociology hrubin@sun.soci.niu.edu Northern Illinois University DeKalb, Illinois 60115 ********************************************************************* ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 16:28:24 CDT Posted by Bruce A. Nissen <bnissen@indiana.edu>

On Fri, 28 Jun 1996, Marshall Louis Ganz <ganz@wjh.harvard.edu> wrote:

> To Bruce Nissen, > > But why aren't they of national significance? A fight by Christian > evangelicals to ban the teaching of evolution and resistance to busing > by numerous local groups in the 1970s were, the picketing of abortion > clinics is, even major strikes at some key plants have been? Is > it a question of location or significance? > > Marshall Ganz >

Marshall, I think they are considered to not be of national significance because they do not appear to be feeding into national policy initiatives, or into "changing the public opinion climate" enough nationally to change the ever-rightward trajectory of national politics. I don't agree with the criticism that they aren't of national significance -- I'm only reporting the feedback I got.

It's not really clear to me why local struggles sometimes translate into national debates and national policy changes, and sometimes they don't. It seems to me that right now we're in a period where they usually don't; they get ignored. Why? I wish I had the answer.

Bruce Nissen Division of Labor Studies Indiana University Northwest bnissen@indiana.edu ======================================================================== Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 17:23:53 CDT Posted by Kevin Harris <U-KHARRIS@bss2.umd.edu>

Marshall Ganz wrote:

In my years with the farm workers, we told the story all the time in the work we did in farm worker communities as well as in the cities where we organized boycotts. It was woven right into our organizing work - in the content of our "raps", in the kinds of actions we undertook, in the ways in which we communicated our work to the public to gain their support for it.

If this is what constitutes "telling the story" then I agree with Marshall that it's certainly the responsibility of the organizer to weave this "storytelling" into their work. I only meant to suggest that it's difficult to analyze and document from a theoretical perspective the work that you're doing while you're in the midst of it.

I recently returned to graduate school after 10 years of organizing to take a step back and do some thinking about the community and national level organizing that I had been doing. But interestingly enough, I received an assistantship that involved a comprehensive planning/revitalization project with a low-income community just inside the beltway in Palmer Park, Maryland (where Sugar Ray Leonard was born). So I've ended up organizing anyway, but have learned to be able to step back and gain some perspective on my work as I'm organizing. Thanks for clarifying what you meant by "telling the story."

Kevin Harris **********************************************************************

Kevin Harris phone: 301-405-6635 Urban Studies and Planning Program fax: 301-314-9897 1117 Lefrak Hall e-mail:u-kharris@bss2.umd.edu University of Maryland College Park, Maryland 20742-2885

********************************************************************** ======================================================================== Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 08:29:04 CDT Posted by Neil McGuffin <neil@netrunner.net>

In your comments of June 21, you mentioned academics not attending to organizing over the recent past, and cite a series of works on organizing or mobilizing. I would like to bring to your attention and to others on the list a work that would provide not only organizing insights from both leaders and organizers on organizing process but would also provide data from over 40 organizations on a variety of variables ---- ranging from fundraising to issue development to recruitment and strategy and tactics. This book ORGANIZING FOR POWER AND EMPOWERMENT by JACQUELINE B. MONDROS and SCOTT M. WILSON is published by Columbia University Press [1994]. It provides hard data on organizing, and is one of the only -- if not the only work-- to provide this type analysis. The book may even begin to address the questions raised by Swain and Lauria

You may contact Dr. Jacqueline Mondros at jmondros@bu4090.barry.edu

Neil McGuffin Academy for Better Communities

[Ed: Neil refers to Randy Stoecker's comments in this posting. To obtain the full compilation of comments, send e-mail to listserv@uicvm.uic.edu with the message GET ALINSKY COMMENTS

Here's a portion of Randy's comments to which Neil refers:

> Thus, there is not a "body" of > academic literature on community organizing -- you don't > get much when you do a subject search. Building a body of > literature can lead to theories, studies of effectiveness, > and hopefully produce information that can inform practice > AND legitimize the practice.

W. Plotkin, COMM-ORG] ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 23:49:55 CDT Posted by Edward Bontempo <ebontemp@erols.com>

As a national staff person with the NEA [National Education Association -- http://www.nea.org] (not the endowment), I have worked, over the last two and half decades, in most of the areas one would expect of any union staff -- strike support, organizing school support personnel, bargaining, grievances, community organizing, political action, and so on. I even organized college and university faculty for collective bargaining.

Much of what I've read on this listserv has been invigorating. The article (and ensuing communications) on Alinsky and "gender" organizing was especially interesting to me. Over the last few years, focusing on the question of what makes a local association strong (read effective, relevant, linked to the community), I've read some in organization development (OD). I had reached the conclusion that OD was most useful in dealing with internal issues like democratic practices, empowerment, diversity, sharing information, and relationships. I've come to see that the issue of relationships -- how members deal with each other in a variety of circumstances and for a variety of reasons -- encompasses many other issues.

As an aside, the Stoecker and Stall piece confirmed what I've observed in my work with local associations over the last few years. I do think, however, that they compare two different things: external and internal organizing.

The examples they use for Alinsky-type organizing illustrate the kind of conflict that arises when power is challenged. The examples of "Women-centered" organizing, on the other hand, illustrated relationship-building _within_ organizations.

I'd like to tell Catherine Poe <cp134@columbia.edu> about a valuable process for creating new ways of dealing with schools: future search conferences. I've been doing future searches, and I find it an excellent way to get whole communities or neighborhoods involved in working to make public education more accessible. Marvin Weisbord, who first outlined the process in his _Productive Workplaces_ (Jossey Bass 1987), describes the conference this way:

"First, get a cross section of the whole system in the room - as diverse a group of interested parties as possible. Second, don't solve problems or manage conflict, but put the issue in a global context and focus on the possibilities of the future. Third, do this in such a way that people manage their work themselves, so that they take responsibility for what they think and do, what they feel and say, and ultimately what they agree to."

Some sources on future search conferences:

Marvin Weisbord. _Productive Workplaces_ (Jossey Bass 1987).

Marvin Weisbord (ed.). _Discovering Common Ground_ (Berrett Koehler 1992).

Weisbord edited this compilation of essays of people from around the world who shared their experiences in using search conferences.

Marvin Weisbord and Sandra Janoff. _Future Search: An Action Guide To Finding Common Ground In Organizations And Communities_. (Berrett Koehler 1995).

There's an excellent interview with Weisbord on the web -- at The Change Project http://www.well.com/user/bbear/index.html.

Weisbord and Janoff have established a SearchNet--a network of consultants who facilitate search conferences on a pro bono basis. SearchNet can be reached at:

SearchNet 4333 Kelly Drive Philadelphia, PA 19129 (800-951-6333).

-- E.F. Bontempo 5 Grant Ave. Takoma Park, MD 20912