Principles 10 страница

65) observes that ‘‘the growing foundation-related infrastructure. . .

supports youth organizing in which projects, uniqueness, and separate identity are what is required to obtain funds, ’’ rather than ‘‘the development of a healthy youth and student movement’’ with a collective mentality. Skep-tical funders also may doubt the capacity of youth-led efforts to function independently, without active adult involvement and supervision. The par-ticular challenges for securing adequate financial resources to support youth-led organizing are explored in chapter 10.

9. Allies

Community organizing depends on people power to wield the requisite clout to bring about social change. Frequently, grassroots groups look be-yond their own membership to determine how they can increase their power and capacity by working with allies who will support and assist their ef-forts. Both individuals and other organizations may function as allies for a community organization. At the organizational level, there may be an alli-ance in which two or more groups work together on a common goal while maintaining their own identities and autonomy. In other instances, a coali-tion may be formed, creating a new and separate structure—an organization of pre-existing organizations in which members give up their independence and agree to share decision-making power.

The relationship with adults (both individuals and organizations) often is complex for youth-led organizations (Youth Wisdom Project 2004, 20): ‘‘Even with all the challenges, youth-led organizations are powerful models

92 CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATION

for youth empowerment and organizational and community development. Young people involved with youth-led organizations develop skills and knowledge they cannot learn any other way. ’’ Within this movement, youth need to play a central role, with adults assisting them only as needed. Adults no longer speak for or represent youth, and this shift in power incorporates an increased recognition that youth have rights, abilities, and corresponding responsibilities. Youth-led organizations typically are wary of being dom-inated and controlled by adults. ‘‘Youth as community assets’’ becomes the organizing core of youth-led activities and places young people in positions of leadership within their communities with a corresponding set of expec-tations that they can effect positive change (Delgado 2007).

However, adults do not ‘‘disappear’’ from the lives of youth during these activities. Advocates for youth-led movements have argued that these ef-forts are primarily about collaboration between youth and adults, not ex-clusively youth-led (Evans, Ulasevich, and Blahut 2004). The ability to foster these relationships helps ensure the success of joint projects, but also equips both young people and adults with experiences and tools to draw upon in future undertakings. Adult–youth relationships based on mutual trust and respect can be quite powerful and transformative in changing institutions, communities, and eventually society. Both positive models of collaboration and common sources of tension within these relationships will be examined in this book.

10. Communications

Grassroots community organizations need to establish how they will com-municate quickly and effectively internally with their members about a range of matters, including upcoming events, actions, decision-making processes, and other activities. It is important for lines of communication to flow dem-ocratically in a two-way fashion, not simply in a top-down manner from the leadership or staff. Open and inclusive communication processes help main-tain member involvement and also make it easier to attract potential ac-tivists who have yet to join the organization. The group also must address the challenge of how it will reach out externally to these prospective recruits, as well as the larger community, through word of mouth, networking, mailings, telephone calls, small community meetings, larger public forums, newsletters, local media, brochures, e-mail listservs, and presentations in multiple settings.

Youth organizing frequently is on the cutting edge of technology, using it for both internal and external communications. Cellphones (instant contact), e-mail (informal and quick-to-spread messages), and computers (offering new marketable skills) hold great appeal for youth and often are combined with traditional patterns of youth communications through networking and word of mouth. Technology also facilitates youth transcending the

GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK

geographical boundaries of their communities, exposing them to a world not normally within their reach. Exchanges with peers at a trans-community level can facilitate learning, consciousness raising, and activism.

This generation of youth grew up with these forms of technology around them, especially youth from privileged backgrounds. While youth from lower income families also are familiar with the technology, access is not a universal phenomenon, particularly when examined from a social-class perspective (Beamish 1999; Sanyal and Schon 1999). Much attention has been directed to the ‘‘digital divide, ’’ which marks the differential access to computers and the Internet (Kitlin 2004; Tardieu 1999). The divide is wear-ing down, but it still exists in many areas of the United States, especially the South. Electronic communication in youth organizing must take such tech-nological disparities into account; however, we discuss the creative use of technology for recruitment, leadership development, information sharing, politicization, mobilization, networking, linkages outside the immediate community, and regular communication among group members at a num-ber of points in the remainder of this book.

Beyond technology, youth culture as manifested through art and music plays a central role in virtually all models of youth-led organizing. Youth culture gets brought to life through a variety of media, including hip-hop and rap music, poetry and other forms of the spoken word, break-dancing, curated galleries, films and video, improvisational theater, and graffiti. These forms of individual and collective expression are essential elements in the process of engaging, motivating, politicizing, and holding the interest of youth activists. Leadership development cannot be separated from the in-fusion of youth culture into every aspect of youth-led organizing. Indeed, the importance and significance of youth culture is an ongoing theme in this book.

Conclusion

The nine principles stated earlier and the ten elements of our analytical framework are offered here to help practitioners better appreciate the dy-namic nature of social interventions such as youth-led community orga-nizing. Academics, too, benefit from these tools. The nine principles capture a broad arena for the reader. The ten elements constitute the analytical framework that we then use to examine youth-led organizing in the United States. As the analysis moves forward, we will not follow a strict regimen, in which we consider each variable sequentially and separately. Such an ap-proach would be unnecessarily static and too rigid to capture the energy, spirit, and dynamism of youth-led organizing. Rather, these ten elements, like the guiding principles, will be interwoven and revisited at many

94 CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATION

different points in the chapters that follow. Our goal is to merge a flexible line of inquiry with a sufficient degree of analytical structure to provide a rigorous and systematic study. As noted earlier in the chapter, there in-variably is tension between being too descriptive and too prescriptive. Local circumstances must ultimately dictate the interaction between the principles and the framework presented in this chapter.

Participatory Democracy

A country where all citizens, young and old, are informed about and engaged in the issues that affect their lives. A place where adults and young people are together at the table— grappling with problems, crafting solutions, and deciding how resources are allocated. A robust democracy where all people, including youth, exercise their right to select those who speak on their behalf. Where young people have an equal opportunity to a sustainable livelihood. Imagine adults and young people building their nations from the ground up, and changing their nations when they fail to meet their needs.

—Building Nations, Changing Nations (2001)

The above quotation powerfully describes a society that is democratic and elects to be inclusive rather than exclusive in who decides what is important and how best to address issues of common concern (Conover and Seering 2000; Sherrod, Flanagan, and Youniss 2002). The concept of participatory democracy has emerged as a vehicle for setting goals and providing mech-anisms for increasing participation on the part of all citizens, regardless of their socio-demographic background (Cutler 2002; O’Donoghue 2003). Meaningful participation in decision making about youth matters usually has been accessible only to adults with children (Golombek 2006). Youth essentially have been disenfranchised from decision-making roles in most of the institutions entrusted to serve and educate them (O’Donoghue, Kirsh-ner, and McLaughlin 2002). For example, young people typically have been given only passive roles in most scholarly activities meant to enhance their well-being (Chan et al. 2003).

96 CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATION

Democratic principles have been developed exclusively by adults for adults, and youth either have been ignored totally or told that their time will come if they are patient. The emergence of participatory democracy is in many ways a direct attempt to rectify the deleterious consequences of dis-enfranchisement. The subject of how youth can play a meaningful role in creating a democratic civil society has not suffered an absence of attention and literature (Golombek 2006). There is general agreement, as the reader soon will see, that a vibrant democratic society cannot afford to deempha-size youth and expect them to miraculously become contributing citizens the moment they achieve the magical stage of adulthood (Charles 2005; Checkoway and Gutierrez 2006; Cohen 2006).

Definition and Rationale

Before examining participatory democracy as a central tenet of youth-led community organizing, it is important to define this term and to under-stand its significance at the level of the general society. Webster’s New World College Dictionary (Agnes 2000, 384) includes the following definition of democracy:

(1) government in which the people hold the ruling power either directly or through elected representatives; rule by the ruled; (2) a country, state, etc. with such government; (3) majority rule; (4) the principle of equality of rights, opportunity and treatment, or the practice of this principle; (5) the common people, esp. as the wielders of political power.

When one looks closely at the literature on democracy, it is clear that it most often has been conceptualized in terms of a form of governmental rather than as a participatory process through which people pursue their rights, opportunities, and interests by wielding political power either through government or civil society. There are numerous models for demo-cratic government, and they run along a continuum from direct participation (Rousseau 1762), as evidenced in town meetings or kibbutzim, on through a variety of indirect forms, including representative (Mill 1861), accountable (Powell and Bingham 1989), and liberal constitutionalism (Weale 1999).

It is not within the scope of this book to critically evaluate the different types of democratic governments. However, the debate about how much participation in the democratic process is optimal is most relevant to this study. Dahl (1982) raised the problem of scale, pointing out that in a large country, government cannot be ‘‘highly participatory, ’’ thus limiting how much influence an average citizen can have. His solution was to ensure the existence of ‘‘smaller democratic units’’ (Dahl 1982). But while some theo-rists and writers have advocated for more decentralization (Jefferson 1824;

PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY

Tocqueville 1840; Arendt 1963; Lynd 1967; Hayden 1970), others have ar-gued that there are limits to its desirability (Mill 1861; Nisbet 1953; Fanon 1965; Moynihan 1969; Etzioni 1969).

While there is a clear, positive correlation between decentralization and the degree of possible democratic participation, few writers, including the authors of this book, maintain that participatory democracy is a panacea for societal ills. Nevertheless, it is a central feature of all community organizing, which is characterized by collective action, participatory processes, indig-enous grassroots leadership, and ‘‘people power’’ (Staples 2004a). Minkler and Pies (2005, 116) note: ‘‘The single most important factor distinguishing true community organizing from other approaches. . . is the active involve-ment of people, beginning with what they define as the needs and goals to be addressed. ’’

Therefore, it is important to understand the basic nature of participatory democracy and the processes by which it works most effectively. Cook and Morgan (1971, 4) offer a very good working definition for this concept:

It seems that participatory democracy connotes two broad features in patterns of decision-making: (1) decentralization or dispersion of authoritative decision-making, whereby the authority to make certain decisions is to be dispersed downward from remote points near the top of administrative hierarchies or outward from central geographical locations, thus bring-ing authority closer to the people affected by it; and (2) direct involve-ment of amateurs in the making of decisions. Some participatory-democracy structures drop the representative principle; those that retain it at all re-quire that representation be kept ‘‘close’’ to the people, with amateur representation selected from a relatively small-scale or immediate con-stituency.

These writers go on to quickly make the point that when referring to am-ateurs, they ‘‘do not use the term in a disparaging sense. ’’ Rather, the word is employed to make the distinction between laypeople who ‘‘need not carry credentials as formally trained experts or professionals serving in career capacities and are not regularly elected officials’’ (4). Thus, participatory de-mocracy entails decentralized structures and processes that enable ordinary members of a society or community to be actively involved in making important and authoritative decisions that affect their lives.

What are the benefits of such involvement? It is the protection from ‘‘tyranny by dispersion of power’’ (Cook and Morgan 1971). Left un-checked, power does tend to become concentrated in the hands of a few leaders, a phenomenon that Robert Michels (1949) characterized as ‘‘The Iron Law of Oligarchy’’ in his classic study of organizational behavior. Certainly, direct and active grassroots involvement can be a powerful anti-dote to centralized power, by holding entrenched leaders accountable to their larger constituency.

98 CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATION

However, while participatory democracy involves the will of the major-ity, the process of arriving at collective decisions often is contentious (Pitkin and Shumer 1982). Indeed, the democratic process may feature challenges to dominant elites when ordinary people take extraordinary action. Attempts to democratize ‘‘from below’’ can result in significant social change (Parenti 2002, 312):

Many of the struggles for political democracy—the right to vote, assemble, petition, and dissent—have been largely propelled by the struggle for economic and social democracy, by a desire to democratize the rules of the political game so as to be in a better position to fight for one’s socioeco-nomic interests. In a word, the struggle for democracy has been part of the class struggle against plutocracy.

Beyond providing a means for power dispersion, as well as exercising and protecting rights, participatory processes tap into the unique perspec-tives, wisdom, information, expertise, and lived experiences of community members, interest groups, consumers/clients of services, and others who do not hold positions of leadership in the relevant public or private adminis-trative hierarchies. This additional input usually results in more effective de-cisions and plans (Cook and Morgan 1971; Burke 1979), although the in-herent challenge to the power and prerogatives of professional experts and institutional decision makers often leads them to fiercely resist such demo-cratic contributions. Participatory processes also are notoriously messy, since they usually are more time-consuming and involve additional divergent views than when authoritative experts make unilateral decisions without grassroots input. Nevertheless, taking the time to get it right by involving those most impacted by decisions usually is more efficient in the long run, with the ideas, insights, and initiatives of the ‘‘amateurs’’ transforming both the process and the product of resolving social issues.

Finally, there are arguments that participation provides an invaluable learning experience for ordinary citizens, that it ‘‘socializes people into new beliefs, attitudes, and values’’ (Cook and Morgan 1971). Kieffer (1984) coined the term participatory competence in his study of citizen empowerment through grassroots organizing. He presents a developmental model that consists of three intersecting dimensions: (a) development of more positive self-concept, or sense of self-competence; (b) development of a critical or analytical understanding of the surrounding social and political environ-ment; and (c) cultivation or enhancement of individual and collective re-sources for social and political action. Indeed, active involvement in suc-cessful efforts to bring about social change can lead to dramatic increases in perceptions of both self and collective efficacy (Pecukonis and Wenocur 1994).

PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY

Elements and Forms of Participatory

Democracy

Given the obvious advantages of participatory democracy, what does it look like in practice and what are the mechanisms and means by which it can be implemented? (Westheimer and Kahne 2002). Burke (1979) identified six strategies of citizen participation that still are relevant and instructive today: education-therapy, behavioral change, staff supplement, cooptation, community power, and advocacy. Both education-therapy and behavioral change focus on making changes in individual participants, with the first approach operating from the assumption that those involved will gain ‘‘in-creased competency in civic affairs, ’’ and the second endeavoring to change individual behavior through the powerful experience of group participation. Staff supplement is a value-added organizational benefit that occurs when volunteers are recruited to carry out responsibilities and tasks that cannot be accomplished fully by existing paid staff members.

Cooptation is a cynical and manipulative strategy ‘‘to involve citizens in an organization in order to prevent anticipated obstructionism’’ (Burke 1979, 97). The concept was introduced by Selznick (1948) in a classic work in which he distinguished between informal cooptation, where some measure of power is shared by a dominant group as a response to pressures from chal-lenging groups, and formal cooptation, which ‘‘merely seeks public acknowl-edgement of the agency-constituency relationship, since it is not anticipated that organizational policies will be put in jeopardy’’ (Selznick 1948, 99). The current catchphrase, the illusion of inclusion, helps capture the essence of cooptation. Frequently, individual community participants ‘‘are selected as ‘types’ based on race, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, income, or other status, rather than as representatives of organized groups’’ and ‘‘often turn out to be atypical of the very group they are chosen to exemplify’’ (Staples 2004a, 211). But even when participants are indeed accountable representatives for a larger constituency, cooptation features participation without a significant measure of accompanying power.

Burke’s usage of the term community power actually refers to approaches that attempt to involve individuals who already have power attendant with their high status. Either such persons seek out particular organizations in which to participate (thereby meeting some of their self-interests) or they are recruited to join. In a sense, this might be characterized as a quasi-elitist strategy, since the participants are of high standing and their involvement either is welcomed or is actively sought by the dominant group.

Finally, advocacy operates from the premise that ‘‘change. . . can be caused by confronting existing power centers with the power of numbers—an or-ganized and committed mass of citizenry’’ (Burke 1979, 102). Consistent with current practice in macro social work, we will reserve usage of the term advocacy to describe actions taken on behalf of others to bring about social

100 CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATION

change or secure rights and opportunities (e. g., advocates for youth). To the extent that self advocacy occurs (e. g., youth acting on their own behalf ), that activity will be designated as community organizing. Burke, in fact, describes archetypal social action community organizing, which features the creation of ‘‘a new center of power’’ derived from the large numbers of grassroots participants. ‘‘This type of organization has the ability to obtain accom-modation from existing power centers, both from its inherent strength and from its choice of tactics’’ (102). Indeed, this book focuses on the strategy of participation termed advocacy by Burke, but we continue to refer to this approach as community organizing.

Prior to Burke, Arnstein (1969, 216) clearly had articulated the relation-ship between grassroots power and community involvement in her seminal critique of the federal programs of the 1960s:

[C]itizen participation is a categorical term for citizen power [emphasis added]. It is the redistribution of power that enables the have-not citizens presently excluded from the political and economic processes, to be de-liberately included in the future. It is the strategy by which the have-nots join in determining how information is shared, goals and policies are set, tax resources are allocated, programs are operated, and benefits like con-tracts and patronage are parceled out.

Arnstein (1969, 217) developed a typology of eight levels of participation ‘‘arranged in a ladder pattern with each rung corresponding to the extent of citizens’ power in determining the end product. ’’ Despite the specificity of her analysis and the passage of time, this formulation of participatory roles can be generalized and still is relevant to current practice.

Arnstein’s eight rungs in ascending order of power are manipulation, therapy, informing, consultation, placation, partnership, delegated power, and citizen control. The bottom two levels, manipulation and therapy, do not allow for any consequential participation, and they place power holders in the position of educating or reeducating community members. The next three steps—informing, consultation, and placation—are forms of token participa-tion. Dominant groups do not surrender or share any significant degree of power. Informing processes entail a one-way flow of information, with mem-bers of the community hearing but not speaking; while consultation allows participants to speak but not necessarily be heard or heeded. Placation raises basic questions about which participants are heard, since it features unrepresentative, handpicked tokens or types, as described above, who do not reflect the majority view of the community from which they have been chosen.

The top three levels do, in fact, represent degrees of genuine citizen power. Partnerships can be structured along a continuum from junior partners to full equals. Many community groups have had difficulty squaring the egalitar-ian rhetoric of partnerships made with universities, health facilities, schools, local government, corporations, and service agencies or bureaucracies with

PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY

the reality of relationships experienced more in form than in substance. Nevertheless, where a situation of genuine partnership does exist, an im-portant measure of power has been redistributed. Arnstein (1969, 221) points out that this is most likely to occur ‘‘where there’s an organized power base in the community. ’’ Indeed, Staples (2004a) has built on this insight with his concept of Community Obligated Institutions (COINS); and he lays out guidelines for institutional power sharing with grassroots community orga-nizations (GCOs) in four areas: decision-making structures, operating pol-icies and procedures, programming, and staffing.

When participation has advanced to delegated power and citizen control, the balance of control has tipped in favor of community members. Arnstein (1969, 222) describes delegated power as ‘‘dominant decision-making power’’ and argues that this occurs when ‘‘have-not citizens obtain the ma-jority of decision-making seats, or full managerial power. ’’ Citizen control takes participation to its highest level, where community members actually have the right to govern.

In fact, these categories are prototypical ideal types, and Arnstein herself points out that there could be many more levels with less sharp distinctions. She also reminds the reader that neither community groups nor those holding power are homogeneous blocs. The real-world dynamics of com-munity involvement and power-holder responses often feature mixing and phasing of the above participatory forms. The processes may not be so clear-cut, but rather be nuanced and subtle. Nevertheless, this model is helpful for understanding the range of forms and roles that may exist.

Evolution of Civic Participation

While the roots of participatory democracy are firmly embedded in tradi-tional American values and political philosophy dating back to Jefferson, the degree of citizen involvement has increased and diminished at different points in history. In his frequently cited book Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam (2000) recounts the steady decrease of civic engagement in the United States following an era of heightened activity during the 1950s and 1960s. His comprehensive study chronicles the decline in social capital and civic par-ticipation through an examination of data about social trends. Elsewhere, Putnam (2003, 2) has defined social capital as ‘‘social networks, norms of reciprocity, mutual assistance, and trustworthiness. ’’

A brief review of Putnam’s findings is in order. Putnam (2000, 41) found sharp reductions in voting, but also decreases in ‘‘political participation outside the context of national elections, especially at the local level, ’’ in-cluding writing letters to the paper, attending public meetings, working for a political party, running for office, attending political rallies or speeches, making a speech, or taking part in a political campaign. Union membership

102 CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATION

⇐ Предыдущая 5 6 7 8 91011 12 13 14 Следующая ⇒