Community Organizing: From Chicago to Durham
Last Thursday, the Weiss Fellows met with Mat Despard: professor at UNC’s School of Social Work by day; Durham-based neighborhood activist for Health Care Access by night. Mat led a discussion about an influential model for grassroots community activism - the Saul Alinsky model popularized during the 1950s – and then challenged the Fellows to consider the relevance of this approach in modern times.
Mat spoke to us primarily in his role as a neighborhood organizer with Durham CAN. This non-profit association of faith-based and neighborhood groups works on a variety of livability issues in Durham ranging from living wage and health care to environmental concerns. Founded almost a decade ago, Durham CAN follows the community organizing model of the Chicago-based Industrial Areas Foundation started by Saul Alinsky in the 1950s (Alinksy is generally considered to be the founder of US community organizing).
This influential model for community action, as Mat and our fearless leader Michael Schwartz described, entails holding a series of living-room meetings with community members to find out each person’s unique values, goals and concerns. The results of those meetings allow organizers to tailor an action agenda that reflects the goals and concerns of neighborhood residents, and taps into people’s values to inspire them to join the movement.
A multifaceted discussion followed, with some Fellows skeptical of the community organizing model for its potential to create activist burnout, and others lauding the approach as a good means for fostering cross-community dialogue.
From my perspective, this model still has a lot to offer, especially as a point for “gateway” activism (i.e. bringing new people into a campaign or movement). Another approach for organizing, (one I am more familiar with), is the neighborhood design charrette. Charrettes bring people together to create physical plans for the future development of their neighborhood. This technique is generally applied to the built environment, but a similar model promoted by AmericaSpeaks can be used to gain community input on policy, too. I like this approach because it focuses on annunciating visible solutions, and because the process can help build social capital toward implementing community goals.
On that note, I will wrap up with some questions for further discussion/thought: What benefits does grassroots-level community organizing offer, from the context of community livability? Is the Saul Alinsky model for community action still relevant in today’s communities? What experiences do other Fellows have with this or other models for community action, and which approaches should we pursue if we are interested in improving the places we live?
Hasta la Pasta,
Audrey
Mat spoke to us primarily in his role as a neighborhood organizer with Durham CAN. This non-profit association of faith-based and neighborhood groups works on a variety of livability issues in Durham ranging from living wage and health care to environmental concerns. Founded almost a decade ago, Durham CAN follows the community organizing model of the Chicago-based Industrial Areas Foundation started by Saul Alinsky in the 1950s (Alinksy is generally considered to be the founder of US community organizing).
This influential model for community action, as Mat and our fearless leader Michael Schwartz described, entails holding a series of living-room meetings with community members to find out each person’s unique values, goals and concerns. The results of those meetings allow organizers to tailor an action agenda that reflects the goals and concerns of neighborhood residents, and taps into people’s values to inspire them to join the movement.
A multifaceted discussion followed, with some Fellows skeptical of the community organizing model for its potential to create activist burnout, and others lauding the approach as a good means for fostering cross-community dialogue.
From my perspective, this model still has a lot to offer, especially as a point for “gateway” activism (i.e. bringing new people into a campaign or movement). Another approach for organizing, (one I am more familiar with), is the neighborhood design charrette. Charrettes bring people together to create physical plans for the future development of their neighborhood. This technique is generally applied to the built environment, but a similar model promoted by AmericaSpeaks can be used to gain community input on policy, too. I like this approach because it focuses on annunciating visible solutions, and because the process can help build social capital toward implementing community goals.
On that note, I will wrap up with some questions for further discussion/thought: What benefits does grassroots-level community organizing offer, from the context of community livability? Is the Saul Alinsky model for community action still relevant in today’s communities? What experiences do other Fellows have with this or other models for community action, and which approaches should we pursue if we are interested in improving the places we live?
Hasta la Pasta,
Audrey
posted by Audrey at
10:24 PM
3 Comments:
One of the aspects of Matt's talk that particularly intrigued me was the framework for Durham CAN, the organization he works with. Durham CAN works with groups of Congregations, Associations, and Neighborhoods (CAN) to discuss and address issues relevant to the communities. This way, meetings can be held with individual religious groups or neighborhoods, etc., rather than trying to gather groups of people to meet from scratch. The Durham CAN model seems very useful, since it takes advantage of existing social frameworks.
I thought the talk was very interesting. I especially liked how Mat emphasized that sometimes the biggest contribution he can make as a person of privilege and power (read: educated white male) is to step aside and let other people lead. It was refreshing to have a person speak who wants to change his community for its own sake, not to gain power, build a resume, or get a job.
While some are skeptical of organizing today, I think it is more important than ever. Communities are so easily fractured. The internet can bring us together in some ways, but I think the lack of face-to-face interactions can hinder the cohesiveness of groups. What is particularly appealing about Alinsky's model is that it implies that you must really know the people you are organizing with -- a human approach.
I was involved with a young adults group (ages 18-35) using a similar model. It was called PACT -- Public Action for Change Today (http://www.chicagopact.org/), and it has done a number of neat initiatives including introducing bills and helping to get them passed in the Illinois Senate.
I really appreciated this opportunity to talk about the power of community in a setting like Carol Woods. It was interesting to, simultaneously, be listening to ideas on the benefit of community and looking out at the aging people who are brought together in this place for such a purpose. We need each other, and our Western notions of the rugged individual are powerful in preventing us from truly coming together. As Michael said, it was refreshing to hear from a speaker so apparently committed to work for its own sake, and not for its potential to benefit him.
Post a Comment
<< Home