|
CO School
:
CO
Theory
1) Saul
Alinsky's Followers
30 Years Later
2)
13
Tactics
3)
Organizer's
Checklist
Saul Alinsky's Followers 30 Years Later
Saul Alinsky, who is usuallv credited with originating community organization
work in poor neighborhoods, died 25 years ago. He was the founder of the (IAF) Industrial Areas Foundation that trains
community organizers. The authors, Denis and Alice Murphy, visited four areas of New York City
where IAF
organizers who trace their tradition back to Alinsky are working.
The authors visited the IAF work in the South Bronx, Lower Manhattan,
the Brownsville
area of Brooklyn and East Harlem. The four areas are among the poorest and socially troubled areas in
New York City.
Saul Alinsky is characterized by the
organizers in New York as an innovative, flamboyant organizer who did wonderful
work in his lifetime, but they say it
was necessary to make important changes
in his style of work. Some of these are:
• Time and Local
Leaders. Alinsky, the organizers said, came to communities at
dramatic moments, formulated a strategy with a few top leaders, stimulated mass
actions (often creative ones) to force the opposition to the bargaining table
and left soon after. There were victories, but often not much remained in terms
of an on-going effective people's organization, especially at the grassroots
level. They claim the Alinsky way was, basically top down - they call it strategic planning,” but not community organization. It involved only a
few people and left a very narrow base behind.
They say it is necessary to say at least 3-5 years
in a community, and even longer. One organizer has been 10 years in the South
Bronx. This is necessary if the hundreds of potential local leaders in the
communities in which IAF works are to be involved. IAF works in very large
areas: South Bronx Churches the name of the people's organization in the South
Bronx covers an area of 300,000 - 500,000 people, for example.
Now they
prepare hundreds of local leaders through one on one discussions, through
four-ten day training sessions and through small local actions. If this work is
well done, decisions will be made dramatically and a broadly based PO will be formed. Short in-and-out
organizing efforts a la Alinsky don't build lasting people's power, the
organizers say.
• Institutions. The organizers stress the value of
forming institutions run by the people's organization, such as, housing
enterprises, education boards, etc. that relate in an on-going permanent way to
government and private agencies. They say this also wasn't part of the old Alinsky work. The danger,
however, is these institutions eat up so much of the organizer's time they can
hurt the basic organizing work, the organizers say. The long-range goal is to
develop these institutions and then spin them off, as was done in Brooklyn with
the Nehemiah Housing. In the South Bronx the organizer says she spends lots of
time in housing and wants to spend less.
• The Churches. The Churches are crucial in the IAF
plan. Organizing begins with the IAF leaders visiting the Churches in the area
to get commitments of support, including money. IAF feels the churches are the
most reliable institutions in poor areas. The Churches form the great majority
of the bodies that make up the initial organizing effort, what could be called
a board. The Churches or their mother institutions (diocese, e.g.) put up the money
for the organizers salaries, so the organizers are paid by the local body, the
South Bronx Churches, for example. The ministers and priests are treated as
local leaders. In the South Bronx only a minority of the Catholic and
Protestant Churches are involved with lAF.
• Power. There is much more talk of "power" among the
New York organizers than is usually heard in the Philippines. The organizers
are constantly and explicitly assessing their power and its adequacy to solve
problems. They make the growth of the organization's power the main criterion
for their choice
of issues, tactics, etc. Though people don't talk explicitly about power as
such, do they in the Philippines in fact ‘act’ as if power were the goal? Is there a danger in
the Philippines
of solving issues in a way that doesn't build the people's power? A danger of
tackling issues beyond our power?
• Conflict. Conflict is always present.One
organizer in East Harlem said every issue they handled involved conflict,
especially with the city. The other organizers said the same. They said the
people don't look for a fight and want to settle things peacefully, but inevitably there is
conflict. Afterwards, when the government has accepted to deal with the people,
there can be non-conflict solutions.
• “One on One”. The organizers talked often of the importance of “one-on-one. Basically
these are serious purposive conversations with potential leaders in the
community about perceived problems, vision of community, possible solutions and the nature of relations
with different people and groups (family, church, own organization, other
organizations, government, etc.). The conversation touches on the person's
motivation, concept of leadership, attitudes to authority, etc., nearly
all the matters that relate to organizing.
The term and the need it answers are also
widespread in
union work IAF and the unions
have realized their organizations were largely top heavy without a solid mass base. A great deal of time
(up to 6 months) is spent on one-to-one at the beginning of the work. There are
also training sessions before any action, which seems to negate the old belief
that leaders emerge from action, and action is the great school. The lead
persons say there may be some actions from the start and they say there is no
real getting away from the central role of action. Organizers have as many as
400-500 one-on-one sessions with potential leaders before action gets underway
in an area.
OVERALL THOUGHTS
The
following are some closing ideas tentatively offered.
There are more similarities
to the progress of CO in the US and the Philippines than there are differences.
Both groups have arrived at
an understanding of CO that stresses formation of local leaders, long stays in
communities, the importance of complementary institutions (housing. savings,
education), the importance of the Churches, the on-going necessity of conflict,
the value of leadership training programs and a clear understanding of power.
In the RP we should ask if we:
• Give
enough time to discussions of power at all levels of our work.
• Make
the best use of Churches.
• Should
aim at forming 100 or so top-flight organizers, well salaried and professional,
or spread, our training over wider areas.
• Review
our work as systematically as we should.
|
