Community organizing is a process that “transforms people with problems into politically active constituencies that eventually build a new collective identity” [1] for the purpose of creating sustained political and social change. It is a form of political influence exercised by groups that have little sway over political decision-making in their communities. Historically, community organizing has been successful in protecting and enhancing the rights and social treatment of working people, people of color, and women.
- There are no pure models [of community organizing]. Developing a practice that works for us [organizers and activists] is a matter of begging and borrowing, stealing, and only occasionally having an entirely new idea.
- -Rinku Sen, Stir It Up: Lessons in Community Organizing
Organizing is more art than science. The success of any given organizing effort is deeply influenced by political context, personalities of involved individuals, and the collective knowledge and experience of a community group. In all cases, community organizing is a fluid process often guided by organizing frameworks that have evolved from decades of practice. A theoretical examination of community organizing reveals two dominant frameworks from which groups often borrow practices and strategies. The first framework, Saul Alinksy’s rules of organizing, advocates a top-down strategy. Known as Alinsky’s rules, the framework promotes (1) rigid leadership roles, (2) membership building as an expression of power, (3) focus on issue campaigns that target a specific decision maker, (4) pursuing winnable public policy campaigns over ideological development, and (5) an absolute “emotional, physical, and intellectual” commitment by organizers [1]. Its greatest strength lies in its demonstration of power through membership building and tangible public policy wins. Leaders of Alinsky-type organizations apply pressure to decision-makers through mobilization of their membership base. Political and social change starts at the top with the development of public policy that benefits people at the bottom who are experiencing the problem being addressed. Many activists, particularly feminists and people of color, have criticized the Alinsky framework. They have taken issue with the framework’s: (1) inflexible, hierarchical leadership structure, (2) devaluing of campaigns that promote ideological change over arguably short-sighted public policy goals, (3) over-emphasis of public sphere intervention, and (4) unrealistic, gender-biased views on the role of organizers. These inadequacies have given rise to the second dominant framework, identity-based organizing [1]. Identity-based organizing is grounded in the belief that meaningful political and social change cannot be achieved through public policy alone. Sustainable social and political change can only be attained by transforming social attitudes and behaviors. Institutionalized inequities are perceived as reflections of unjust social relations. It is believed that if a community organizing group can change the personal attitudes and behaviors of people, public policy will inevitably be forced to reflect the new value system adopted by the larger community. The identity-based framework promotes bottom-up organizing because change begins with the people affected by the problem (the bottom) and results in changes in public policy (the top). Although much more can be said about the similarities and differences between Alinsky and identity-based frameworks, for the purpose of this paper I distinguish the two on the basis of how they see change most effectively coming about. Alinsky’s primary strategy is through changes made in public policy. Identity-based organizing primarily promotes changes in personal attitudes and behaviors. Both Alinsky’s rules and identity-based organizing developed before the internet became a mainstream communication form. Some common tools used by both frameworks include:
- Building and mobilizing a membership base
- Leafleting
- Neighborhood canvassing
- Protests
- Phone banking
- Coalition building
- Contract negotiations (primarily used in union organizing)
- Petitions
- Letter writing campaigns
- Use of newspaper and television
- Rallies
- Sit-ins
- Class-action lawsuits
- Media campaigns (television and newsprint)
As an activist with ten years of community organizing experience primarily in Silicon Valley [2], I have had many personal experiences in implementing these common strategies from within Alinsky and identity-based organizations. I have found that even when tools are used with “tactic and strategic wisdom” [3], their effectiveness is some questionable. As the scientific revolution of computing has resulted in rapid social, economic and political change, traditional organizing methods appear to having diminishing effectiveness. Here are some examples of how and why traditional methods do not hold as much promise as they once did.
- Membership building is still an effective tool for influencing public policy. However, because communication tools like computer-automated phone banks have made it easier and faster to contact large numbers of people in a relatively short period of time, mobilization of a group’s base often becomes superficial. Mobilizations are often the result of an organization’s ability to market an event to a group of people who already agree with their position on an issue. It may not be a reflection of their skill in persuading the average person to get involved.
- Television and print media are sensational. People are turning to other forms of communications sources such as the internet to keep themselves informed. Unlike chat room, blogs, and e-mail lists, they do not provide a quality forum for members of a community to interact and challenge one another’s ideologies.
- Leafleting is perceived as an unsophisticated form of communication. When someone is approached with a leaflet there is question about the legitimacy of the organization and issues you represent.
- Civil disobedience in the form of sit-ins, particularly in the 1960’s and 1970’s, would stop cities and towns cold. Today, both small and large demonstrations are seen and described as hassles or useless distractions. A physical space such as an office lobby or street is taken over, people who ordinarily use that environment can continue to work and live around the event with the assistance of computers, cellular phones, and fax machines.
- Bombarded with information and details from throughout the day, people who answer calls from phone bankers confuse calls inviting them to participate in political or social activities as simply another sales pitch.
Overall, people are overwhelmed. They do not have the time, energy or desire to differentiate sensational from legitimate, or a sales pitch from an invitation to civic participation. How can a single person’s opinion, voice, or experience really make a difference when there are so many individuals and groups trying to gain their attention through phone calls, instant messages, faxes, television, radio, and e-mail? There is too much work to do and few ways to effectively filter information. They do not see the how joining a community groups is going to affect real change. As Rinku Sen eloquently describes, community organizing must be grounded in practice. That practice sometimes requires the infusion of “an entirely new idea.” Online activism is a new idea built upon the same principle as traditional community organizing: an individual with limited funds and social clout has little influence, however, as a member of a group a person can work to create sustainable social and political change. “In its early stages of development, the internet was seen as an appropriate and useful tool for community organizers….[Some people thought] that the internet would revolutionize community work – replacing much of what had been traditionally been in meeting halls and church basements [4].”As the practice of online organizing has begun to mature, it has become more apparent that “online methods [of organizing] added new possibilities, but they did not usurp the need for time-honored methods [4].” In Chapter 2, I describe why I believe that in practice online activism is a model of the Alinsky framework. This novel strategy provides great promise in influencing public policy, but falls short in its ability to shape personal attitudes and behaviors. In an effort to address the inadequacies of traditional community organizing and online activism, I developed a technology-enhanced community organizing model entitled Sisterhood. Sisterhood is a model built with the desire to create social and political change through use of both bottom-up and top-down practices. It borrows strategies and practices from Alinsky and Identity-based frameworks. It balances the practical need for strong organizational infrastructure and the motivation and reward of winning narrow public policy campaigns with the freedom to explore and pursue ideological change. This hybrid strategy is enhanced through use of a bottom-up online activist website entitled Equivalent: a working woman’s invoicing system. To test the Sisterhood model, I designed, developed, and implemented Equivalent. A Silicon Valley women’s rights/economic justice group, the Bay Area chapter of 9to5 National Association of Working Women, endorsed the site and agreed to test it for a four-week period. The study reveals how a bottom-up online activist strategy can enhance traditional organizing strategies through consciousness raising and motivating political change through grassroots data collection. Serendipitously, the study also found that women’s interests in computing peaked as they recognized it could have some relevance to their lives.