Prior to doing these readings, I found myself struggling to understand how what we will be doing will be any different than traditional charitable volunteering. In truth, I am not certain of how GCD will exercise what we’ve been learning so far, but I’ve come to understand that not having an exact idea of what we will be doing is part of the process. The readings for this week were helpful in allowing me to understand that wanting to know exactly what our group will be doing and knowing the details of the community we’ll be visiting is part of my own oppressive thought processes on working in communities other than my own. It’s become clearer to me now that it is the role of Cape Charles to set the agenda of our visit and introduce their communities to us, rather than the role of our facilitators.
The reading, “Acompañar Obediciendo” by Simonelli was particularly instrumental in clarifying the objective and methods of community service learning. “We balance observation and participation; learning and helping; teaching and being taught; immediate results and sustainable activities; practice and research.” (p. 9). The journal entries of the college students who visited Ivanhoe reported on the experience of community service learning: “We came here to help them, to work hard, and instead they’re doing so much more for us. We came to give of ourselves but they’re giving us so much more.” (p. 285).
Prior to this week’s readings, I could only think of how we would be useful to Cape Charles as supports, but it hadn’t occurred to me that they would want us there to get to know us and spend time teaching us. I’ve been dreading experiencing resentment from our host community towards us, and being a representation of the oppressive forces that have created poverty through racism. The readings have helped me to open my mind to the possibility that perhaps Cape Charles might actually want us there for more than just manual labor.
In the chapter on Ministry in It Comes From the People, the authors touched upon what I was worried about representing to Cape Charles. “Some who had worked closely with the students began to feel uncomfortable, wondering if they were being taken advantage of, perhaps even being subject to ridicule… They made people feel inferior… Could they prevent the students’ presence from perpetuating the degradation and dependence that is all too often the lot of ‘charity’ recipients?” (p. 287-288). This was my big question about our own ASB trip. Could we enter a community such as Cape Charles or Ivanhoe and be more constructive than charities?
Balancing practice, method, and theory is critical. Without the content of the course, the insights of the readings, and the tools that we have acquired so far, I think the ASB trip would be unsuccessful. Coming to grips with my own privilege and the circumstances that have created my own social status and at what cost this status has been granted to me has been critical for me. Understanding agency and community service learning has allowed me to open myself up to what I might learn and gain from Cape Charles, rather than fearing how I will hurt the community. Simonelli’s article reminded me of how to use my academic training on myself. “Moving beyond feel-good resolutions to the inequitable distribution of wealth and privilege, anthropologically informed service-learning shows that we can be involved in the reconfirmation or ‘testing’ of critical theory… Anthropological models of learning and service are a gentle critique of other programs where a subtle, but deadly ethnocentrism still guides the provision of service.” (p. 14).
This has helped me to let go of guilt and fear, and rather approach the ASB trip with humility and to receive whatever it is that the Cape Charles community has to teach me. Quoting Gayatri Spivak, hooks provides sage advice for an individual in a social position of unearned privilege who is trying to learn how to an active anti-racist and ally: “She explains that ‘what we are asking for is that the hegemonic discourses, and the holders of hegemonic discourse, should dehegemonize their position and themselves learn how to occupy the subject position of the other.’ Generally, this process of repositioning has the power to deconstruct practices of racism and make possible the disassociation of whiteness with terror in the black imagination.” (p. 177).
***
In the situation of being confronted by members of the community about our role of privilege and our intentions and motivations, it’s difficult to imagine the reality of the response I would be able to give, especially if I’m tired and dirty and under the impression that things have been going well. In reality, under these circumstances, it is quite probable that I would be shocked, my heart rate would accelerate, and I would become inarticulate and too anxious to really formulate a response. This is a problem I have with direct, hostile confrontations; I react by having a panic attack.
Ideally, however, in the event that I am able to work myself through the initial anxiety and panic of being confronted, I would hope to be able to engage in dialogue with the group, and hopefully do so with the support of my teammates. I would want to remind them that we were invited into the community, and that if the community feels that what we’re doing in their community is unwanted, then they should let us know. This to me feels like although it might be too defensive of a comment, it would be important to make it clear that the community is in control of the agneda and that we are simply guests who are here on their terms.
I would like to be able to ask the group of men if they would be willing to talk about this issue further, and if given consent, it would be a good opportunity to engage in a dialogue. I can’t predict what my teammates would do in this situation, but I would want to ask what gave them the impression that we were only here to assuage guilt and feel good about ourselves. If given the space to, I would hope to share with them that I’ve personally made a goal for myself to attempt to see everyone as sharing a common goal and common right: to be happy.
According to the Dalai Lama in his essay on Compassion and the Individual, “Because we all share an identical need for love, it is possible to feel that anybody we meet, in whatever circumstances, is a brother or sister. No matter how new the face or how different the dress and behavior, there is no significant division between us and other people. It is foolish to dwell on external differences, because our basic natures are the same.” This is different than wishing for a color-blind society. This mode of thinking asserts that we all share a common goal: to be happy. To be compassionate is to see people as having the right to be happy, and therefore respecting the cultural and individual perspectives of the pursuit of happiness. Equally important is to understand why people have become unhappy, filled with anger, or express hatred towards others.
If it became possible to engage in dialogue, I would want to know where these men were coming from when they made the comments, and under what circumstances they have been led to think this way. I would also want them to know my own perception and why I am here in this class. I’m not a spoiled rich kid, and I could share my own experience with being on the recipient end of charity. I remember very well my own feelings of resentment towards the college student volunteers who worked with Habitat for Humanity to build my family’s home.
I would want to stress that we are here on their terms, and we are here to learn from them so that we could go forward in our attempts to reconstruct the system that has granted unearned privileges at the expense of other equally deserving peoples. I would want them to know that we’re not here because we feel bad for people with a worse lot in life, but rather that we are sincerely invested in changing the power structure. Simonelli explains that “Theoretically, our work was guided by the notion of ‘agency’, and deriving from this, the act of giving agency to those to be ‘aided’, as a creative response to the colonial experience, of which anthropology was a part.” (p. 13).
It would be important to make it clear that we are not here to apologize and right the wrongs of our ancestors so that we can go to bed happy. We are here to work towards change. The aim of the group working with the Zapatistas is what we are hoping to achieve: “In the end, rather than a commitment between a place and a place, as is the usual notion of a sister city relationship, we developed an on-going relationship between an outcome and an outcome.” (p. 13). We are hoping to learn from them how we can change our own oppressive behaviors and help to liberate others from internalized oppressions. I would ask them how we could change this system and create social justice, and how we would be able to do it on their terms. I’m not sure of the reality of this conversation, but it’s a conversation I’d like to be able to have.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
GCD Reflection 2.26.09
I think Maxine Waller gives a solid answer to the question of “Why is Ivanhoe poor” in her Thanksgiving 1987 speech: “The Constitution of the United States of America is not for the people of Ivanhoe.”(p.71). Law making and policy making rarely has been made in the best interest of the poor. Reflecting back to Johnson’s Privilege, Power, and Difference, it is important to recall that: “Privilege is always a problem for people who don’t have it and for people who do, because privilege is always in relation to others… Everything that’s done to receive or maintain it – however passive and unconscious – results in suffering or deprivation for someone.” (p.8). Laws and policies are designed and upheld by those who have established privilege and prioritize the maintenance of their privilege.
Comparable to many other places where poverty is a contemporary issue, Ivanhoe is located on land that was once rich in resources. Natural resources are valuable, especially to those in power. The dominant power has historically been capable of deciding who those resources would be used for and for what purpose. This is how things played out in Ivanhoe. “Outsiders (capitalists) with money or vision or maybe both, saw a chance to get rich quick and took advantage of the situation.” (p.19). The powers that be were able to build furnaces and mines to remove and use the resources in the land that Ivanhoe was built upon.
People came to Ivanhoe to work for the powers-that-be to do the labor necessary to extract the resources for popular use. Immediately, this set up a power relationship that awarded privilege to the companies and dependency to the residents. This power relationship determined the fate of the people to become oppressed and impoverished. “When a town or region is dependent on one industry, the people and the community become powerless and dependent, isolated from important decision making.” (p. 30). The community was dependent on the jobs provided by the mines and plants, and when they shut down, they created a poor town.
Ivanhoe remains poor because of their oppression by the three faces of power, as we learned according to Ganz. If the first face of power for Ivanhoe is first, the companies who were able to decide how to allocate the resources and also able to decide that there were better(cheaper) places to get the same job done. Once the Ivanhoe Civic League was established and they attempted to take some power back, they were faced by a new representation of the first face of power, agencies and organizations, the county officials, other members of local and state government.
When the Ivanhoe Civic League was confronting the first face of power and were met by nice sounding words and praises, the second face of power was at work ensuring that the issues of the people of Ivanhoe stayed off the table. “Despite all the accolades and words of encouragement from politicians and government officials, there was little material help or resources readily available to the community of Ivanhoe.” (p.67). The Ivanhoe Civic League discovered that there were many bureaucratic limitations to help and guidelines that they had been unaware of preventing their issues from being resolved.
The third face of power is at work in the establishment of the power relationship between the haves and the have-nots of Ivanhoe history. The company was able to get away with destroying most of the vitality of the community because the community suffered from internalized oppression and a feeling of helplessness and dependency caused by the loss of their jobs and the loss of their pride. This is why it took so much and so long before Ivanhoe was able to finally protest the damage being inflicted upon them. Because they had been so damaged already, this was held against them, as agencies and organizations were reluctant to assist Ivanhoe because they had no capital.
***
I think one of the most important strategic actions taken by the Ivanhoe community is to educate themselves. This is important because it has allowed the Ivanhoe Civic League to see the bigger picture of oppression and privilege in the world. Maxine Waller describes what she was able to see once her eyes had been opened: “We didn’t get in this situation overnight… The depression is a world problem and there are people all over the country, and all over the world, bringing about these little changes just like we are.” (p.81). Before she became educated about the connections between poverty and government, she was a less effective leader because her goals were addressing the immediate problem (lack of jobs due to lack of a factory) rather than the root of the problem (community dependency on industry).
Because the immediate needs could not be met, the community benefited greatly from understanding why their demands would not be met and what they could do instead. “There was less of a sense of helplessness and more of a growing sense of power about the future and possibility of controlling it.” (p.86). Without educating the community to empower themselves, they would not be able to preserve the community.
Before the Ivanhoe Civic League embarked on the Community Education Program, they recorded their victories as well as their failures. An important tactical action used by the Ivanhoe Civic League was the event, Hands Across Ivanhoe. Especially early on in the development of an organization, having such a symbolic and empowering event was particularly useful. The first thing the group needed to do was come together to show that the group was willing and committed to working together to solve the community’s problems.
Maxine put it well when she said: “We didn’t just need something to raise funds. We needed something to join people together, to bring people together, and let them stand up for something they believe in.” (p.53). As the Ivanhoe Civic League was in it’s early stages here, it really did need to show the community something physical and tangible to express the sentiment of working together. The result of this was strengthening the bonds of the community and providing them with hope and excitement for the future of the Ivanhoe Civic League and the town itself.
This is part of what turned into what I consider one of the important and defining strategies of the Ivanhoe Civic League. The use of theatre to develop community, strengthen relationships, and to express the voice of the people seems to have been especially effective with Ivanhoe. “Theatre, which builds on the storytelling of oral tradition, is another way in which the community members are able to tell their story and reflect on and learn from their experiences.” (p.111). Using theatre and poetry and other creative techniques not only honors the heritage of the community, but empowers the people through the encouragement to use their voices and to tell their story.
The theatre project was useful to the Ivanhoe Civic League in the lessons learned about the relationships between the members of the community and the outside forces that choose to work on behalf of the people of Ivanhoe. This conflict, although it only affected a few, was a beneficial experience in that it taught both Maxine and the outsider director that it is important to understand how much is too much. By this I mean that it is incredibly essential for the success and health of those involved in community development to recognize when they are spreading themselves too thin. When a select few take on more responsibilities than they can reasonably handle and remain healthy, then the goal of the event
Comparable to many other places where poverty is a contemporary issue, Ivanhoe is located on land that was once rich in resources. Natural resources are valuable, especially to those in power. The dominant power has historically been capable of deciding who those resources would be used for and for what purpose. This is how things played out in Ivanhoe. “Outsiders (capitalists) with money or vision or maybe both, saw a chance to get rich quick and took advantage of the situation.” (p.19). The powers that be were able to build furnaces and mines to remove and use the resources in the land that Ivanhoe was built upon.
People came to Ivanhoe to work for the powers-that-be to do the labor necessary to extract the resources for popular use. Immediately, this set up a power relationship that awarded privilege to the companies and dependency to the residents. This power relationship determined the fate of the people to become oppressed and impoverished. “When a town or region is dependent on one industry, the people and the community become powerless and dependent, isolated from important decision making.” (p. 30). The community was dependent on the jobs provided by the mines and plants, and when they shut down, they created a poor town.
Ivanhoe remains poor because of their oppression by the three faces of power, as we learned according to Ganz. If the first face of power for Ivanhoe is first, the companies who were able to decide how to allocate the resources and also able to decide that there were better(cheaper) places to get the same job done. Once the Ivanhoe Civic League was established and they attempted to take some power back, they were faced by a new representation of the first face of power, agencies and organizations, the county officials, other members of local and state government.
When the Ivanhoe Civic League was confronting the first face of power and were met by nice sounding words and praises, the second face of power was at work ensuring that the issues of the people of Ivanhoe stayed off the table. “Despite all the accolades and words of encouragement from politicians and government officials, there was little material help or resources readily available to the community of Ivanhoe.” (p.67). The Ivanhoe Civic League discovered that there were many bureaucratic limitations to help and guidelines that they had been unaware of preventing their issues from being resolved.
The third face of power is at work in the establishment of the power relationship between the haves and the have-nots of Ivanhoe history. The company was able to get away with destroying most of the vitality of the community because the community suffered from internalized oppression and a feeling of helplessness and dependency caused by the loss of their jobs and the loss of their pride. This is why it took so much and so long before Ivanhoe was able to finally protest the damage being inflicted upon them. Because they had been so damaged already, this was held against them, as agencies and organizations were reluctant to assist Ivanhoe because they had no capital.
***
I think one of the most important strategic actions taken by the Ivanhoe community is to educate themselves. This is important because it has allowed the Ivanhoe Civic League to see the bigger picture of oppression and privilege in the world. Maxine Waller describes what she was able to see once her eyes had been opened: “We didn’t get in this situation overnight… The depression is a world problem and there are people all over the country, and all over the world, bringing about these little changes just like we are.” (p.81). Before she became educated about the connections between poverty and government, she was a less effective leader because her goals were addressing the immediate problem (lack of jobs due to lack of a factory) rather than the root of the problem (community dependency on industry).
Because the immediate needs could not be met, the community benefited greatly from understanding why their demands would not be met and what they could do instead. “There was less of a sense of helplessness and more of a growing sense of power about the future and possibility of controlling it.” (p.86). Without educating the community to empower themselves, they would not be able to preserve the community.
Before the Ivanhoe Civic League embarked on the Community Education Program, they recorded their victories as well as their failures. An important tactical action used by the Ivanhoe Civic League was the event, Hands Across Ivanhoe. Especially early on in the development of an organization, having such a symbolic and empowering event was particularly useful. The first thing the group needed to do was come together to show that the group was willing and committed to working together to solve the community’s problems.
Maxine put it well when she said: “We didn’t just need something to raise funds. We needed something to join people together, to bring people together, and let them stand up for something they believe in.” (p.53). As the Ivanhoe Civic League was in it’s early stages here, it really did need to show the community something physical and tangible to express the sentiment of working together. The result of this was strengthening the bonds of the community and providing them with hope and excitement for the future of the Ivanhoe Civic League and the town itself.
This is part of what turned into what I consider one of the important and defining strategies of the Ivanhoe Civic League. The use of theatre to develop community, strengthen relationships, and to express the voice of the people seems to have been especially effective with Ivanhoe. “Theatre, which builds on the storytelling of oral tradition, is another way in which the community members are able to tell their story and reflect on and learn from their experiences.” (p.111). Using theatre and poetry and other creative techniques not only honors the heritage of the community, but empowers the people through the encouragement to use their voices and to tell their story.
The theatre project was useful to the Ivanhoe Civic League in the lessons learned about the relationships between the members of the community and the outside forces that choose to work on behalf of the people of Ivanhoe. This conflict, although it only affected a few, was a beneficial experience in that it taught both Maxine and the outsider director that it is important to understand how much is too much. By this I mean that it is incredibly essential for the success and health of those involved in community development to recognize when they are spreading themselves too thin. When a select few take on more responsibilities than they can reasonably handle and remain healthy, then the goal of the event
GCD Reflection 2.19.09
The Allan Johnson readings from his book Privilege, Power, and Difference were very effective for me in terms of thinking of new ways to explore social justice and the role I play in this work. The language that he used I found to be useful in that they articulated many ideas that I have tried to communicate to myself and to other people, but have been unable to find the words to express the intent. Throughout the course of the four chapters we read, I noticed feeling gratitude at having been provided a way to say what I want to be able to say.
I recognize the fact that Allan Johnson is situated in a role of having unearned advantages to his various overlapping social statuses (white, male, heterosexual, nondisabled, middle class), and that it may be as a result of my own internalized socialization to allow the viewpoints of the dominant groups to be received as the “right” way to say things. I did not find Barbara Love’s article to be inarticulate or in any way “inferior” to Johnson’s writing style, quite the opposite actually. However, I feel that the language used in Privilege, Power, and Difference was more accessible and graspable, and even if this is only because of the fact that Johnson has been able to benefit from the resources of academic training and development of language use and writing ability because of unearned advantages. This is something I would like to remain observant of throughout further research and readings.
I found a few quotes of his particularly resonant and useful to clarify my own ideas and opinions. “Privilege is always a problem for people who don’t have it and for people who do, because privilege is always in relation to others… Everything that’s done to receive or maintain it – however passive and unconscious – results in suffering or deprivation for someone.” I found that statements such as this and others were particularly useful to me in discovering a way to speak about social justice to those who benefit from unearned advantages due to social characteristics. I know from personal experience that I have been afraid to discuss sexism with men because of being accused of being a feminist. This reaction stops conversations before they can even begin. I feel somewhat more prepared to address the idea of the word “feminist” being an accusation or insult, however I do not believe I have the language set needed to be able to help guide those who have learned to become uncomfortable by words such as “sexism” or “privilege” to open their eyes to the idea that their discomfort is caused by social construction.
One of the very important concepts that I took away from the Johnson article was the idea of reclaiming the words used to address oppression. “We have to reclaim these lost and discredited words so that we can use them to name and make sense of the truth of what’s going on.” This point reminded me of the Inga Muscio book, Cunt, in which she is adamant to help the reader understand that fearing words gives words power, and that if women want to in anyway deconstruct the patriarchy, then they need to discover how to use the language of oppression constructively.
This is the beginning of developing a liberatory consciousness. I am beginning to understand that although I have been enmeshed in trying to make social change happen and deconstruct oppressive hierarchies, I have been falling short in addressing where I have been failing. Love’s guidelines to enabling a liberatory consciousness I have found useful in that I was able to read the Johnson article with awareness of the privilege he has in that he is able to write such a work, and analyze the usefulness of his language in that it will benefit me to use it to communicate with those who benefit from unearned advantages. Hopefully, I will be able to proceed with the action and accountability aspects of her guidelines by actually attempting to use the language he is presenting to engage in discussions with people whom I otherwise would be afraid of being accused as being an upstart feminist/activist.
***
I believe that it is essential for any method of grassroots organizing to address privilege and class, and especially how these are interconnected. As we learned in Bridging the Class Divide, a peace organization could not have been successful if it did not address privilege and class. I believe that the future of activism and social change is in bridging the divide between “isms” and movements. An interdisciplinary approach to organizing and activism is the only way that change will be made.
Barbara Love provides a useful toolset for anyone hoping to work at something related to social justice or organizing. I think that even if the goal of the organization is not specifically geared towards moving the dominant culture towards embracing social justice (such as environmentalist organizations or peace work), it is still crucial that if the group is hoping to work together and to be effective on a larger scale, the individuals of the group need to attempt to work towards developing a liberatory consciousness. This is because the current world state is in interdisciplinary trouble, and it will therefore require an interdisciplinary solution. If we as a people do not even grasp the idea of interdisciplinary work, then it is going to be significantly more difficult for the human species to come together to solve the multiplicity of troubles that plague the Earth.
Of course, certain issues can be embraced by the dominant culture and they can attempt to create solutions that are designed with only the dominant culture in mind. The “Go Green” movement is a good example of a serious problem (climate change and environmental degradation) that affects interconnected people who are separated by social construction and is caused by interconnected sources that are also separated by structures of oppression already in place. Although there are a lot of grassroots efforts going on that tackle environmental justice and the connections between social justice and sustainability, there is also a lot of manipulation of this issue by people with unearned advantages. Such as expensive products marketed to the white liberal middle-to-upper class bracket that allow this demographic to feel as if they are doing something to create a “solution”, and that other people, who are unable to perhaps afford such products or have access to resources that would help them make choices that favor sustainability, are part of the “problem”.
This is why a lot of the time movements and organizing efforts can have a one step forward, two steps backward effect. Awareness is raised about a particular issue, and if enough people seem to be interested about this issue, rest assured that the dominant culture will be able to use this issue as a way to benefit dominant culture whether it be through profitability of “hot topics”, production of “justifiable” methods of consumption, or the further pulling of the veil over the eyes of those who belong to dominant culture. “Privilege increases the odds of having things your own way, of being able to set the agenda in a social situation and determine the rules and standards and how they’re applied… It allows people to define reality and to have prevailing definitions of reality fit their experience.” So it is that those with privilege are able to decide what the issues are and are therefore the ones who decide what the solution will be. This is what is keeping a lot of people from waking up to the reality of what is hurting this world, and from developing their own liberatory consciousness and being able to create real change.
Grassroots organizing is the venue in which interdisciplinary approaches to gigantic interconnected problems can be understood and the individuals who participate in grassroots movements are able to free themselves from internalized oppression and learn to face their own privileges and unearned advantages and begin to understand the history and reality of privilege and oppression. Because interdisciplinary models of grassroots organizing, such as the Piedmont Peace Project, integrate the issues of class and privilege into their main goals (peace work) they are able to function as a unit and help each other understand the concept of interconnectedness and the relationship between problems (environmental degradation, unfair treatment, military spending) and privilege.
I recognize the fact that Allan Johnson is situated in a role of having unearned advantages to his various overlapping social statuses (white, male, heterosexual, nondisabled, middle class), and that it may be as a result of my own internalized socialization to allow the viewpoints of the dominant groups to be received as the “right” way to say things. I did not find Barbara Love’s article to be inarticulate or in any way “inferior” to Johnson’s writing style, quite the opposite actually. However, I feel that the language used in Privilege, Power, and Difference was more accessible and graspable, and even if this is only because of the fact that Johnson has been able to benefit from the resources of academic training and development of language use and writing ability because of unearned advantages. This is something I would like to remain observant of throughout further research and readings.
I found a few quotes of his particularly resonant and useful to clarify my own ideas and opinions. “Privilege is always a problem for people who don’t have it and for people who do, because privilege is always in relation to others… Everything that’s done to receive or maintain it – however passive and unconscious – results in suffering or deprivation for someone.” I found that statements such as this and others were particularly useful to me in discovering a way to speak about social justice to those who benefit from unearned advantages due to social characteristics. I know from personal experience that I have been afraid to discuss sexism with men because of being accused of being a feminist. This reaction stops conversations before they can even begin. I feel somewhat more prepared to address the idea of the word “feminist” being an accusation or insult, however I do not believe I have the language set needed to be able to help guide those who have learned to become uncomfortable by words such as “sexism” or “privilege” to open their eyes to the idea that their discomfort is caused by social construction.
One of the very important concepts that I took away from the Johnson article was the idea of reclaiming the words used to address oppression. “We have to reclaim these lost and discredited words so that we can use them to name and make sense of the truth of what’s going on.” This point reminded me of the Inga Muscio book, Cunt, in which she is adamant to help the reader understand that fearing words gives words power, and that if women want to in anyway deconstruct the patriarchy, then they need to discover how to use the language of oppression constructively.
This is the beginning of developing a liberatory consciousness. I am beginning to understand that although I have been enmeshed in trying to make social change happen and deconstruct oppressive hierarchies, I have been falling short in addressing where I have been failing. Love’s guidelines to enabling a liberatory consciousness I have found useful in that I was able to read the Johnson article with awareness of the privilege he has in that he is able to write such a work, and analyze the usefulness of his language in that it will benefit me to use it to communicate with those who benefit from unearned advantages. Hopefully, I will be able to proceed with the action and accountability aspects of her guidelines by actually attempting to use the language he is presenting to engage in discussions with people whom I otherwise would be afraid of being accused as being an upstart feminist/activist.
***
I believe that it is essential for any method of grassroots organizing to address privilege and class, and especially how these are interconnected. As we learned in Bridging the Class Divide, a peace organization could not have been successful if it did not address privilege and class. I believe that the future of activism and social change is in bridging the divide between “isms” and movements. An interdisciplinary approach to organizing and activism is the only way that change will be made.
Barbara Love provides a useful toolset for anyone hoping to work at something related to social justice or organizing. I think that even if the goal of the organization is not specifically geared towards moving the dominant culture towards embracing social justice (such as environmentalist organizations or peace work), it is still crucial that if the group is hoping to work together and to be effective on a larger scale, the individuals of the group need to attempt to work towards developing a liberatory consciousness. This is because the current world state is in interdisciplinary trouble, and it will therefore require an interdisciplinary solution. If we as a people do not even grasp the idea of interdisciplinary work, then it is going to be significantly more difficult for the human species to come together to solve the multiplicity of troubles that plague the Earth.
Of course, certain issues can be embraced by the dominant culture and they can attempt to create solutions that are designed with only the dominant culture in mind. The “Go Green” movement is a good example of a serious problem (climate change and environmental degradation) that affects interconnected people who are separated by social construction and is caused by interconnected sources that are also separated by structures of oppression already in place. Although there are a lot of grassroots efforts going on that tackle environmental justice and the connections between social justice and sustainability, there is also a lot of manipulation of this issue by people with unearned advantages. Such as expensive products marketed to the white liberal middle-to-upper class bracket that allow this demographic to feel as if they are doing something to create a “solution”, and that other people, who are unable to perhaps afford such products or have access to resources that would help them make choices that favor sustainability, are part of the “problem”.
This is why a lot of the time movements and organizing efforts can have a one step forward, two steps backward effect. Awareness is raised about a particular issue, and if enough people seem to be interested about this issue, rest assured that the dominant culture will be able to use this issue as a way to benefit dominant culture whether it be through profitability of “hot topics”, production of “justifiable” methods of consumption, or the further pulling of the veil over the eyes of those who belong to dominant culture. “Privilege increases the odds of having things your own way, of being able to set the agenda in a social situation and determine the rules and standards and how they’re applied… It allows people to define reality and to have prevailing definitions of reality fit their experience.” So it is that those with privilege are able to decide what the issues are and are therefore the ones who decide what the solution will be. This is what is keeping a lot of people from waking up to the reality of what is hurting this world, and from developing their own liberatory consciousness and being able to create real change.
Grassroots organizing is the venue in which interdisciplinary approaches to gigantic interconnected problems can be understood and the individuals who participate in grassroots movements are able to free themselves from internalized oppression and learn to face their own privileges and unearned advantages and begin to understand the history and reality of privilege and oppression. Because interdisciplinary models of grassroots organizing, such as the Piedmont Peace Project, integrate the issues of class and privilege into their main goals (peace work) they are able to function as a unit and help each other understand the concept of interconnectedness and the relationship between problems (environmental degradation, unfair treatment, military spending) and privilege.
GCD Reflection 2.12.09
Reading the first chapter of Streets of Hope, I kept encountering a theme of powerlessness. The power over where to live and the safety and security of their homes and livelihood seemed to be entirely outside of their hands. Bothwell comments on how this affected the community: “It was like a sense of having no allies. People were really powerless.” As a reader and encountering the information that instilled a sense of despair as to the hope of the community that I was learning about, approaching this assignment of discovering the power map of the Dudley Street Neighborhood is daunting. It seems that no matter the intent of the community to serve the interests of the constituency yet they are still unable to make any progress because they are unable to get past the “gatekeeper” as Ganz puts it.
However, if power is going to be defined as being “not a thing, attribute, quality, characteristic, or trait – it is a relationship,” then I can begin to understand how to go about thinking of the power of the Dudley Street Neighborhood. The issue I am examining is the housing issue. The interests of the community I would assume to be to own or rent properties that are in adequate conditions and free from institutional methods of discrimination and debilitation against tenants and homeowners. Bothwell is quoted as saying “We were trying…to figure out some way to build some sort of a land trust… that would place control of the land in the hands of community people.”
The needs of the community are for the most part able to be satisfied through acquired resources. The city, the realtors, and policy makers, benefactors hold the resources needed to address these interests from the public and private sector, and philanthropists. Unfortunately, educational resources need to be made available to the Dudley Street Neighborhood in order for them to recognize the avenue of finding support from philanthropists or other external organizations/individuals. As we saw in Bridging the Class Divide, the town of Midway was unable to acquire power in order to change the relationship between their neighborhood and the forces that effect it until the community of Midway had been provided access to educational and informational resources that would allow them to begin to formulate how to go about finding balance and justice.
The members of the community who are attempting to have their issues heard and recognized represent the first “face of power” of the Dudley Street Neighborhood. The specific individuals would be the organizing team led by Bothwell and aided by the person from the Department of Agriculture. However, comparable to the African Americans of the civil rights movement, their urges for recognition and assistance with the housing issue were blocked by the “gatekeeper”.
The city officials who laughed at the people of the Dudley Street Neighborhood are the people responsible for the disparity of power of the community, because they act as the third “face of power.” These are the forces that maintain the feeling of hopelessness that the community is met with and reinforce internalized oppression. The power in the hands of the city officials is removed directly, by having the issues blocked up front through neglect as well as through resistance to cooperate. It is also removed indirectly through the use of accusations of the character of the group attempting to obtain a balance of power. In the 1979 BRA report, the Dudley community is accused of being apathetic, lacking organization, and lacking commitment and willingness to change the state of their community. This paints the Dudley street community as being responsible, and by presenting them this way, policy makers, philanthropists, and other outside supports are less likely to aid the Dudley neighborhood by providing resources.
It is not that the Dudley community does not to improve their community or that they are not organizing themselves to do so, rather, the problem is that the power is being withheld and made unattainable to the community. The decisions of policy makers and federal agencies such as the FHA and the Boston city officials hoping to profit off of the destruction of a community because they are racially and economically biased, makes it an extremely daunting endeavor for the community to obtain safe and secure homes. Not only that, but these are people who are economically disadvantaged due to the racist institution that constricts the options of the community, and thus have limited time and existing resources.
As power is being withheld from the group by officials and by the constraints of the community’s resources, the ability to meet the needs of the constituency is handicapped. I believe that the group is going to have to use the model illustrated by Linda Stout with the PPP in order to find a new avenue in which to obtain their goals of having the land be in control of the community.
***
In both the Kretzman and the Stout readings, it is made clear that the change that low-income disadvantaged communities deserve to see come to fruition is not going to come from the top down. Stout discusses at length how it is important that the community first empower themselves and educate themselves before they are able to make change first to the immediate needs such as safety and hygiene of the community (trash dumping, road access, etc.) and then later to make the changes to policy and national issues that will affect the vitality of the community from the top-down. A multi-directional approach does not need to be seen as binary (top-down vs. bottom-up), rather it could be seen as cyclical and more of a closed loop. This should be the goal of philanthropists, community organizers, and social justice activists.
Stout tells us in Bridging the Class Divide that she had aversions and resentments toward the upper middle class white organizers who wanted to make decisions for the benefit of the communities they were working with. This restricted the interests of the communities or issues they were working to support, by placing the interests of the organizers in front of the interests of the community. Additionally, the majority of these sorts of organizations are using the model described by Kretzman and McKnight as being a “Needs-Driven Dead End.” By using this model, the lives of the individuals are made easier and yes, small improvements do happen.
A friend of mine is working on a project in Springfield right now that reminds me of the successes of working to benefit the homeless and reduce homelessness in the city. Project Homeless Connect originated in San Francisco and has been spreading city to city to reduce homelessness and help serve the individual needs of those who do not have shelter for the night. She told me that they go out on Monday nights and stay out nearly the whole night trying to find people sleeping on the streets to give them blankets, food, and help them find shelter. This seems like one of those “leaky pipe problems” of attempting to put a band-aid on a gaping wound, and that more people should perhaps be directing their efforts at reforming policy and working from the top down to address the issue of national homelessness. However, Project Homeless Connect has only been in operation in Springfield for a little over a year, and already there is over 40% less people sleeping on the streets than their was before the project began. The motto of Project Homeless Connect in San Francisco is that “It will take all of our collective help to end homelessness in San Francisco – help from government, from business, from non-profit agencies, and from individual community members.”
This organization is another example, like the Piedmont Peace Project, of an attempt to make the community better for all involved in the community by using a closed-loop and all-inclusive approach to achieving the goals. This is the capacity-focused development approach in work. The capacity of the individuals of the community might be limited due to lack of resources, however if the education and information is provided to the immediate community to achieve both the immediate needs as well as working towards a long-term goal through the building and negotiation of relationships (the definition of power according to Ganz), then the community might become enabled to work towards a goal that is in the interests of the constituency rather than having external agencies decide what the interests of the constituency is.
Having worked as a teacher, I find myself often experiencing confliction over what direction to work from. Do I want to get involved with reforming policy by advocating for these underrepresented groups and making public their issues through the use of publications of written works? Do I want to be in the classroom helping to teach those most in need? What I have realized is that I cannot advocate for a group that I have not become a part of myself. It is more important for me to involve myself in a community by providing the resources that are withheld from low-income urban neighborhoods, and helping the individual members of the community discover how to meet their goals on their own terms.
However, if power is going to be defined as being “not a thing, attribute, quality, characteristic, or trait – it is a relationship,” then I can begin to understand how to go about thinking of the power of the Dudley Street Neighborhood. The issue I am examining is the housing issue. The interests of the community I would assume to be to own or rent properties that are in adequate conditions and free from institutional methods of discrimination and debilitation against tenants and homeowners. Bothwell is quoted as saying “We were trying…to figure out some way to build some sort of a land trust… that would place control of the land in the hands of community people.”
The needs of the community are for the most part able to be satisfied through acquired resources. The city, the realtors, and policy makers, benefactors hold the resources needed to address these interests from the public and private sector, and philanthropists. Unfortunately, educational resources need to be made available to the Dudley Street Neighborhood in order for them to recognize the avenue of finding support from philanthropists or other external organizations/individuals. As we saw in Bridging the Class Divide, the town of Midway was unable to acquire power in order to change the relationship between their neighborhood and the forces that effect it until the community of Midway had been provided access to educational and informational resources that would allow them to begin to formulate how to go about finding balance and justice.
The members of the community who are attempting to have their issues heard and recognized represent the first “face of power” of the Dudley Street Neighborhood. The specific individuals would be the organizing team led by Bothwell and aided by the person from the Department of Agriculture. However, comparable to the African Americans of the civil rights movement, their urges for recognition and assistance with the housing issue were blocked by the “gatekeeper”.
The city officials who laughed at the people of the Dudley Street Neighborhood are the people responsible for the disparity of power of the community, because they act as the third “face of power.” These are the forces that maintain the feeling of hopelessness that the community is met with and reinforce internalized oppression. The power in the hands of the city officials is removed directly, by having the issues blocked up front through neglect as well as through resistance to cooperate. It is also removed indirectly through the use of accusations of the character of the group attempting to obtain a balance of power. In the 1979 BRA report, the Dudley community is accused of being apathetic, lacking organization, and lacking commitment and willingness to change the state of their community. This paints the Dudley street community as being responsible, and by presenting them this way, policy makers, philanthropists, and other outside supports are less likely to aid the Dudley neighborhood by providing resources.
It is not that the Dudley community does not to improve their community or that they are not organizing themselves to do so, rather, the problem is that the power is being withheld and made unattainable to the community. The decisions of policy makers and federal agencies such as the FHA and the Boston city officials hoping to profit off of the destruction of a community because they are racially and economically biased, makes it an extremely daunting endeavor for the community to obtain safe and secure homes. Not only that, but these are people who are economically disadvantaged due to the racist institution that constricts the options of the community, and thus have limited time and existing resources.
As power is being withheld from the group by officials and by the constraints of the community’s resources, the ability to meet the needs of the constituency is handicapped. I believe that the group is going to have to use the model illustrated by Linda Stout with the PPP in order to find a new avenue in which to obtain their goals of having the land be in control of the community.
***
In both the Kretzman and the Stout readings, it is made clear that the change that low-income disadvantaged communities deserve to see come to fruition is not going to come from the top down. Stout discusses at length how it is important that the community first empower themselves and educate themselves before they are able to make change first to the immediate needs such as safety and hygiene of the community (trash dumping, road access, etc.) and then later to make the changes to policy and national issues that will affect the vitality of the community from the top-down. A multi-directional approach does not need to be seen as binary (top-down vs. bottom-up), rather it could be seen as cyclical and more of a closed loop. This should be the goal of philanthropists, community organizers, and social justice activists.
Stout tells us in Bridging the Class Divide that she had aversions and resentments toward the upper middle class white organizers who wanted to make decisions for the benefit of the communities they were working with. This restricted the interests of the communities or issues they were working to support, by placing the interests of the organizers in front of the interests of the community. Additionally, the majority of these sorts of organizations are using the model described by Kretzman and McKnight as being a “Needs-Driven Dead End.” By using this model, the lives of the individuals are made easier and yes, small improvements do happen.
A friend of mine is working on a project in Springfield right now that reminds me of the successes of working to benefit the homeless and reduce homelessness in the city. Project Homeless Connect originated in San Francisco and has been spreading city to city to reduce homelessness and help serve the individual needs of those who do not have shelter for the night. She told me that they go out on Monday nights and stay out nearly the whole night trying to find people sleeping on the streets to give them blankets, food, and help them find shelter. This seems like one of those “leaky pipe problems” of attempting to put a band-aid on a gaping wound, and that more people should perhaps be directing their efforts at reforming policy and working from the top down to address the issue of national homelessness. However, Project Homeless Connect has only been in operation in Springfield for a little over a year, and already there is over 40% less people sleeping on the streets than their was before the project began. The motto of Project Homeless Connect in San Francisco is that “It will take all of our collective help to end homelessness in San Francisco – help from government, from business, from non-profit agencies, and from individual community members.”
This organization is another example, like the Piedmont Peace Project, of an attempt to make the community better for all involved in the community by using a closed-loop and all-inclusive approach to achieving the goals. This is the capacity-focused development approach in work. The capacity of the individuals of the community might be limited due to lack of resources, however if the education and information is provided to the immediate community to achieve both the immediate needs as well as working towards a long-term goal through the building and negotiation of relationships (the definition of power according to Ganz), then the community might become enabled to work towards a goal that is in the interests of the constituency rather than having external agencies decide what the interests of the constituency is.
Having worked as a teacher, I find myself often experiencing confliction over what direction to work from. Do I want to get involved with reforming policy by advocating for these underrepresented groups and making public their issues through the use of publications of written works? Do I want to be in the classroom helping to teach those most in need? What I have realized is that I cannot advocate for a group that I have not become a part of myself. It is more important for me to involve myself in a community by providing the resources that are withheld from low-income urban neighborhoods, and helping the individual members of the community discover how to meet their goals on their own terms.
GCD Reflection 2.6.09
Internalized classism is one of the many results of institutionalized oppression. Stout describes institutionalized oppression as being “when a prejudice is supported by all the systems of society with all the power to back up that prejudice, so that it becomes the canon – the accepted way.” Because of the acceptance of classism in dominant society, members of all economic classes are subject to internalized classism, be it privilege or oppression.
Kadi mentions a few of the tools that have led to the general acceptance of classist beliefs. “Class socialization begins early. Material possessions, home environment, and neighborhood provide information about our present situation and our future. Family members’ sense of/lack of entitlement and expectation provides more. Social constructions of class, put out by institutions such as media and school are a third factor.” From an early age, we are led to believe in classist stereotypes such as that poor people are stupid and that is why they are in poverty. Because of these structures in place that maintain class difference and retain class privilege, the majority of people living in a classist society remain unaware of the ways they are oppressed by it or the ways that they benefit from it. Same as a white person may believe that they are not a racist because they have not learned to understand the ways in which they benefit from white privilege, a middle or upper class person may not recognize the privileges they have due to class nor understand the daily oppression of the poor.
Internalized oppression is important to understand and come to grips with in order for those who experience what Kadi describes as having the feet of the privileged on the necks of the oppressed, to empower themselves and grow as individuals and as a community towards creating justice. Recognizing and understanding institutionalized oppression (classism, racism, sexism, etc.) and how we as individuals internalize the mechanisms in place that reinforce the canon of social structure is the first step that has to be taken before a group can come together to explore ways to make social change happen.
While doing these readings, I was forced to come to terms with my own internalized oppression and classism. I identified with Kadi and Stout, having grown up in poverty. I can remember very clearly feeling separated from my peers because of class socialization. My father is a working class child of working class parents. He had a 9th grade education and has worked as a carpenter for his entire life, from when he dropped out of high school until the present moment in which he is in his late fifties. My mother was a first generation college graduate, but even having a degree would not save her from poverty. She has worked as a preschool teacher for her entire adult life, and now she is 60 and retirement is not an option that is foreseeable for her.
In my life experience, I was socialized to believe that my family was not as good, and that I could never be as good as the middle and upper classes. One of the damages I have withstood as a result of growing up poor in a classist society is a lack of confidence in myself socially. When I was young, my mother decided to move us out of urban and predominantly low-income Lynn, and to move into one of the segregated low-income housing neighborhoods in the predominantly white and middle-to-upper class town of Ipswich. Before, I hadn’t experienced the enormous disparity between classes, as almost all of my peers and neighbors in Lynn were in the same economic status as my family. However, in Ipswich, it was made abundantly clear to me that I was an outsider, somehow different from the other students. The other children’s parents brought them shopping regularly for new things, their families went on vacations; my mother’s four children relied on hand-me-downs from older cousins, and my mother couldn’t afford a car, much less a vacation. My upper-middle class friends would be afraid to come to the apartment my family lived in. My two brothers, sister, and I all internalized these things growing up, and each one of us struggled with academic failure in the public schools, depression and anxiety, low self-esteem and self-destructive habits, debt, drug addiction, and bad decision-making.
I dropped out of high school and wanted nothing more from life than to sleep through all of it. The conditions in which my family lived made me hate myself and hate my mother. Four teenagers experiencing an assault of institutionalized classism and taking the blame out on their single and clinically depressed mother for not being middle class and married sums up the environment in which I lived for the majority of my adolescence. I like to think of my mother as being “accidentally poor” though. She raised her children with values commonly associated with the more economically privileged. She raised her children vegetarian, refused to allow junk food into her house, provided us with intellectually stimulating toys, media, and books, and encouraged all of us to do well enough in school to go to college.
Because of my mother’s diligence to turn us into critical thinkers and expose us to the pleasures of the middle class that many others in poverty to not have exposure to (such as healthy nutrition or literature), my siblings and I have all come out of our experience growing up poor with an awareness of the injustice of institutionalized classism. This is not true for most children who are raised in poverty, however. Unless their community or parents are able to provide the resources for them to learn how to talk about, investigate, and thus make change to these social injustices, than the children of poverty are only able to internalize this oppression as anger, confusion, or self-loathing.
Kadi mentions a few of the tools that have led to the general acceptance of classist beliefs. “Class socialization begins early. Material possessions, home environment, and neighborhood provide information about our present situation and our future. Family members’ sense of/lack of entitlement and expectation provides more. Social constructions of class, put out by institutions such as media and school are a third factor.” From an early age, we are led to believe in classist stereotypes such as that poor people are stupid and that is why they are in poverty. Because of these structures in place that maintain class difference and retain class privilege, the majority of people living in a classist society remain unaware of the ways they are oppressed by it or the ways that they benefit from it. Same as a white person may believe that they are not a racist because they have not learned to understand the ways in which they benefit from white privilege, a middle or upper class person may not recognize the privileges they have due to class nor understand the daily oppression of the poor.
Internalized oppression is important to understand and come to grips with in order for those who experience what Kadi describes as having the feet of the privileged on the necks of the oppressed, to empower themselves and grow as individuals and as a community towards creating justice. Recognizing and understanding institutionalized oppression (classism, racism, sexism, etc.) and how we as individuals internalize the mechanisms in place that reinforce the canon of social structure is the first step that has to be taken before a group can come together to explore ways to make social change happen.
While doing these readings, I was forced to come to terms with my own internalized oppression and classism. I identified with Kadi and Stout, having grown up in poverty. I can remember very clearly feeling separated from my peers because of class socialization. My father is a working class child of working class parents. He had a 9th grade education and has worked as a carpenter for his entire life, from when he dropped out of high school until the present moment in which he is in his late fifties. My mother was a first generation college graduate, but even having a degree would not save her from poverty. She has worked as a preschool teacher for her entire adult life, and now she is 60 and retirement is not an option that is foreseeable for her.
In my life experience, I was socialized to believe that my family was not as good, and that I could never be as good as the middle and upper classes. One of the damages I have withstood as a result of growing up poor in a classist society is a lack of confidence in myself socially. When I was young, my mother decided to move us out of urban and predominantly low-income Lynn, and to move into one of the segregated low-income housing neighborhoods in the predominantly white and middle-to-upper class town of Ipswich. Before, I hadn’t experienced the enormous disparity between classes, as almost all of my peers and neighbors in Lynn were in the same economic status as my family. However, in Ipswich, it was made abundantly clear to me that I was an outsider, somehow different from the other students. The other children’s parents brought them shopping regularly for new things, their families went on vacations; my mother’s four children relied on hand-me-downs from older cousins, and my mother couldn’t afford a car, much less a vacation. My upper-middle class friends would be afraid to come to the apartment my family lived in. My two brothers, sister, and I all internalized these things growing up, and each one of us struggled with academic failure in the public schools, depression and anxiety, low self-esteem and self-destructive habits, debt, drug addiction, and bad decision-making.
I dropped out of high school and wanted nothing more from life than to sleep through all of it. The conditions in which my family lived made me hate myself and hate my mother. Four teenagers experiencing an assault of institutionalized classism and taking the blame out on their single and clinically depressed mother for not being middle class and married sums up the environment in which I lived for the majority of my adolescence. I like to think of my mother as being “accidentally poor” though. She raised her children with values commonly associated with the more economically privileged. She raised her children vegetarian, refused to allow junk food into her house, provided us with intellectually stimulating toys, media, and books, and encouraged all of us to do well enough in school to go to college.
Because of my mother’s diligence to turn us into critical thinkers and expose us to the pleasures of the middle class that many others in poverty to not have exposure to (such as healthy nutrition or literature), my siblings and I have all come out of our experience growing up poor with an awareness of the injustice of institutionalized classism. This is not true for most children who are raised in poverty, however. Unless their community or parents are able to provide the resources for them to learn how to talk about, investigate, and thus make change to these social injustices, than the children of poverty are only able to internalize this oppression as anger, confusion, or self-loathing.
GCD Reflection 2.6.09
A peace organization would fail if it did not address issues of social justice and community building. If the word “peace” can be loosely defined as being the absence of hostility, healthy interpersonal relationships, and the acknowledgement of equality between political relationships as well as personal relationships, than a peace organization would then need to be capable of dealing with social justice and community building.
Although the Alinsky method comes into critique in Bridging the Class Divide, I think that there is a truth to the connections Alinsky made between international peace and community empowerment. Stout sums this up as “if you take care of local needs and empower people locally, social change on a national level will happen.” This is where community building becomes an essential component of an agenda for national peace and social change. It also seems to make sense to me that if the community is unable to see the connections between what is going on in their immediate and daily life to what is happening in the national sphere of policy and politics, than it is going to be incredibly difficult to rally your local community to vocalize and take action to change the national issues.
This is where Alinsky’s model falls short, and Stout’s model improves upon his. By providing the resources and support to her community to help them “see the connections between national military policy and local problems so that they understood how their own lives were affected…” than she would be able to help the community to “find their own voices to say what they thought was wrong or right about these national policies.” This is where the connection between peace work and community development occurs. Through PPP’s literacy programs and get-out-the-vote programs, Stout’s community was able to develop despite the forces against them, such as classism and racism. By educating the community about the relationship between poverty and injustice and national policy and military spending, the communities are able to help themselves vocalize and take action. One of the most memorable stories from the book was the story of Midway, the segregated town within the town of Aberdeen. Stout points out that “it was absolutely essential that the folks in Midway do it for themselves,” referring to organizing themselves to go to the town council to demand a dumpster.
By making the connections to injustices going on locally to policies that occur nationally, the community is able to develop practically on a local scale while the awareness of peace work is given the opportunity to develop. If the community was not given the opportunity to empower themselves and take care of the immediate needs (as was the goal with Alinsky), then the community is not able to care about an agenda for national social change and international peace. If the members of the community are burying their trash in their backyards and barely able to afford the basic necessities, than there is simply no use in going into the community to ask them to be mindful of military spending and to take action in policy making.
Social justice is also an incredibly important part to community development, especially when the larger goal of the organization is to work towards peace. If peace inherently implies equality, than the goal of an organization needs to make clear that if their agenda is going to be to achieve peace or bring humanity closer to peace, than they need to address issues of social injustice. I think it was especially important for Stout to include social justice as a goal within her organization.
Again, this is how community development is essential in peace work. “I don’t believe we can win the change we want without first building an organization whose inner workings reflect the same commitment to equality and mutual respect that we strive for in our organizing work.” Stout makes it clear that she and the PPP need to be the change they want to see in the world. If racism, sexism, homophobia, or classism is tolerated within the organization, than social justice and thus peace will not be an accomplishable goal, even on the local scale.
Although the Alinsky method comes into critique in Bridging the Class Divide, I think that there is a truth to the connections Alinsky made between international peace and community empowerment. Stout sums this up as “if you take care of local needs and empower people locally, social change on a national level will happen.” This is where community building becomes an essential component of an agenda for national peace and social change. It also seems to make sense to me that if the community is unable to see the connections between what is going on in their immediate and daily life to what is happening in the national sphere of policy and politics, than it is going to be incredibly difficult to rally your local community to vocalize and take action to change the national issues.
This is where Alinsky’s model falls short, and Stout’s model improves upon his. By providing the resources and support to her community to help them “see the connections between national military policy and local problems so that they understood how their own lives were affected…” than she would be able to help the community to “find their own voices to say what they thought was wrong or right about these national policies.” This is where the connection between peace work and community development occurs. Through PPP’s literacy programs and get-out-the-vote programs, Stout’s community was able to develop despite the forces against them, such as classism and racism. By educating the community about the relationship between poverty and injustice and national policy and military spending, the communities are able to help themselves vocalize and take action. One of the most memorable stories from the book was the story of Midway, the segregated town within the town of Aberdeen. Stout points out that “it was absolutely essential that the folks in Midway do it for themselves,” referring to organizing themselves to go to the town council to demand a dumpster.
By making the connections to injustices going on locally to policies that occur nationally, the community is able to develop practically on a local scale while the awareness of peace work is given the opportunity to develop. If the community was not given the opportunity to empower themselves and take care of the immediate needs (as was the goal with Alinsky), then the community is not able to care about an agenda for national social change and international peace. If the members of the community are burying their trash in their backyards and barely able to afford the basic necessities, than there is simply no use in going into the community to ask them to be mindful of military spending and to take action in policy making.
Social justice is also an incredibly important part to community development, especially when the larger goal of the organization is to work towards peace. If peace inherently implies equality, than the goal of an organization needs to make clear that if their agenda is going to be to achieve peace or bring humanity closer to peace, than they need to address issues of social injustice. I think it was especially important for Stout to include social justice as a goal within her organization.
Again, this is how community development is essential in peace work. “I don’t believe we can win the change we want without first building an organization whose inner workings reflect the same commitment to equality and mutual respect that we strive for in our organizing work.” Stout makes it clear that she and the PPP need to be the change they want to see in the world. If racism, sexism, homophobia, or classism is tolerated within the organization, than social justice and thus peace will not be an accomplishable goal, even on the local scale.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
