CONCEPTUALIZING

COMMUNITY CHANGE
3.25.20- Community Intervention
A History of Organizing

■ Community Organizing- distinct form of organization building and activism that grew
in the US mostly after WWII.
■ Traditionally builds member organizations.
■ Focus is on changing institutional policies and practices in certain areas.
■ Saul Alinsky- considered to the be founder of the movement
– Industrial Areas Foundation
– Was the first person to write down principles and rules
Organizing Rules from Alinsky

■ Distinct roles of the organization and community leader

■ Building of the organization and the community’s power
■ Focused on single decision maker
■ Focus on the needs and issues of a specific group of people
■ Mode should be 24/7
Other Models

■ Community Service Organization Model – mutual aid structure

■ Faith Based Organizing – Development of the whole person and
congregation focus
■ Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)-
replicable model of individual membership organizations.
Critiques of Alinsky’s Approach

■ Antiracist critique
– Dominance of white men as organizers
– Lack of focus on racial issues in communities
– Lack of flexibility on the rules and model
■ Feminist critique
– Overemphasis on public sphere
– Lack of balance between work and family
– Narrow self interest
– Reliance on conflict and militaristic tactics
Evolution of Organizing

■ Discussion about if winability is important, but it has become

increasingly divisive
– Example of War on Drugs
■ Emergence of new labor and other trends to be more inclusive
Identity Movements

■ Identify Politics- a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background,
etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based
party politics.
■ Emphasis on looking at how racism, sexism and sexual oppression verses only social
class/socio economic class.
■ Moving away from ‘universal movements’
■ Concept that society gives benefits to certain groups of people, leaving others out.
Three Principles of Identity Politics

■ Previous identities that were deemed biological are socially constructed.

■ Social Constructions create vastly different experiences for people as
they navigate life.
■ One solution may not fit all.

■ Critics say that identity politics are too narrow to make true change.
Today’s Trends

■ Organizing more marginalized groups

■ Tackling issues that may be harder to win, but help those who need it the most.
■ Engaging more political/civic education in organizing.
■ Recommendations for Practice
– Some shifting/blurring of roles between organizers and community leaders.
– Organizers must take their educational role more seriously.
– Organizers must be learners
– Emphasis on documenting and data
Power to the People

■ Grassroots community organizing- collective action by community member drawing on

the strength of numbers, participatory processes, and indigenous leadership to decrease
power disparities and achieve shared goals for social change.
■ Some Principles:
– Community Members make their own decisions about social change. Organizing is
bottom up
– Community members take collective action that employs ‘people power’
– The Community provides its own leadership for the change effort.
Six Arenas

■ Six Arenas
– Turf- focus on a physical area
– Faith-based- organizing done directly by religious institutions
– Issue based- Formed around certain issues (health care, education, etc)
– Communities of Identity – issues centered around areas of identity, like race,
gender, ethnicity, etc
– Shared Experience- organized based on life experience rather than identity, like
people who are homeless, students, etc.
– Work-related- largely based on labor unions but there are other examples
Two Approaches

■ Community Development- involved participants in activities and processes to produce

improvement and enhance social solidarity.
– Is constructive and integrative
– The Community plays a big role to bring change for itself.
– Is most often internal, but can be external
– Strengths based approach, building capacity
■ Social Action- brings people together to convince decision makers to meet collective goals.
– Is adversarial, focus on getting decision makers to do what they normally wouldn’t
– Focus is external, often issue based
– 3 Goals- problem resolution, building a power base, and changing power disparities
Ten Tools for Taking Power

1. Doing it yourself
2. Framing persuasive arguments
3. Popular education
4. Using existing laws, policies and processes
5. Creating or changing laws, policies and processes
Ten Tools for Taking Power

6. Influencing public opinion

7. Exercising electoral Power
8. Affecting appointments
9. Exercising consumer power
10. Disrupting ‘business as usual’
Social Service or Social Change?

■ Do our human service efforts make social problems worse?

■ We can inadvertently make things worse with our interventions.

■ There has been a significant increase in the amount of wealth held by the 1% over the
past thirty years.
■ Inequality perpetuates the poverty and other challenges that other people experience.
Organizing for Power

■ Concept of the buffer zone- managerial space that allows the 1% to maintain control.
■ Functions of the buffer- take care of people, keeping hope alive, controlling the change
makers.
■ In the last part of the 20th century, new tactics were used to maintain the control.
■ Example: Civil Rights Movement
Role of Nonprofits

■ Nonprofits work as a supplement to government intervention.

■ Wealthy individuals’ donations are oftentimes focused on charitable efforts and not
structural change.
■ The jobs of nonprofit and other service professionals are dependent on keeping the
system going as it is.
■ This is done under the guise of temporary relief, when the reality is that the structure of
our society makes this permanent.
■ There are not enough resources to ‘get ahead’ with this pyramid structure and inequality.
Role of Nonprofits (cont)

■ Discussion of if human service professionals can tackle inequality if the main focus of
the work is on charitable, relief type initiatives.
■ Example: Domestic violence.
– Looking at the problem from a structural perspective, we would look at domestic
violence less as an individual/family unit problem and more how it intersects with
societal issues.
– Community tolerance for male violence, lack of well paying jobs, lack of childcare,
societal shaming of victims.
Nonprofits (cont)

■ Six questions to consider:

– Who supervises your work?
– Are you involved in community based social justice struggles?
– Is political struggle part of the work you do?
– Are you in a contentious relationship with those in power?
– Are you sharing power and resources with those on the front lines?
– Do you help people come together?