What Do Organizers Do?
I appreciate Zach's focus on organizers listening to people, but that's just emphasizing that the real dichotomy has never been Leninists versus Alinskites, but good organizers versus failed organizers.
Every successful organizer -- be they a Communist, civil rights campaigner, neighborhood organizer or religious fundamentalist building a mega-church -- has always tapped the intelligence and leadership of those they are seeking to organize.
There are admittedly lots of bad organizers out there, but no decent organizer would disagree that identifying local leaders is THE essential part of organizing. But Zach's hailing of "the People" begs the question of what organizers actually DO.
Unlike Zach's caricature, when Communists were successful in the United States-- and the New Deal and the building of industrial trade unions was due partly to skilled Communist organizers -- it was not that they "steamrolled" the people to recite the Communist Manifesto.
The Union Model of Organizing: If anything, the Communists that were successful were those that backpedaled the ideology and took their lessons from Alinsky in picking the issues on the shopfloor or community that was motivating local folks. Or rather, Alinsky took his lesson from those radicals; the opposition of the traditions is actually pretty insignificant at its heart.
And one of the things that made the best of the Communist and other leftwing organizers in the 1930s so successful is that they promoted rank-and-file leadership, including many black leaders that traditional unions were ignoring. They found the key leaders of particular ethnic and racial blocs and helped get them to work together, despite all the racial tensions continually threatening to blow these shopfloor coalitions apart.
The signal organizing event of the 1930s was the sitdown strike at General Motors in Flint Michigan. It is not an object of historical awe because organizers planned and executed commands from on high, but precisely because it was an improvised action that depended on leadership by workers across the company to work day-to-day. It was based on that improvised rank-and-file leadership that the first union contract in the auto industry was signed.
So what was the role of the union organizers? Well, before the UAW organizers arrived on the scene, General Motors was divided into lots of workplace groups, divided by race, by skill level, by gender, by a whole range of different attributes. And those divisions did lead to justifiable fear by workers that if they took significant action, they would pay for it by being fired.
Most of the UAW organizers were existing or former autoworkers themselves-- definitely not some separated class -- and what they brought to the table was a dedication to overcoming divisions among workers. No, organizers rarely 'create" leaders, but they do make the case for local leaders better working together, pushing them to overcome the racism, sexism or fears that too often keep people who should be working together from doing so.
Calling Norma Rae: For a more modern version of this, go watch or rewatch the movie Norma Rae, still one of the best movie portrayals of what an organizer does. The staff organizer isn't there just trying to tell workers to do what he says; in fact, as a Jewish New Yorker he knows pretty well that it will never happen. Instead, he is there to find the natural leaders who can convince the rest of the workforce to unionize.
He finds a key leader early on in Norma Rae, who at first is reluctant to join up because as a single mom, such leadership is discouraged, and it's doubly discouraged because she will be working side-by-side with black maile co-workers. But Ruben, the organizer, spends most of his time recruiting Norma Rae, knowing it's HER leadership that will win the organizing campaign, not his.
And he doesn't just want her to do what he says. In fact, she tells him his flyer is wrong and tells him to use different words. He rewrites the flyer based on her instructions. The goal of the organizer is precisely to have the local leaders running the show-- symbolized by the fact that the organizer leaves at the end of the campaign, leaving them to run the union once they've won.
What do Organizers Do: Zach may have worked with some terrible organizers in his life-- and they are definitely out there -- but neither the history of organizing in the US or the success of more recent organizing drives in the union movement and out support the idea, as he states, that the organizing tradition does not believe that "groups of 'ordinary people' were in fact capable of brilliant organizing." In fact, much of the left debate on organizing concentrates on to what degree regular leaders inevitably screw up that brilliance. The extreme on the left is Rosa Luxembourg and some in the anarchist tradition who argue that only bottom-up leadership and actions like mass strikes are ever effective, but there is almost no part of the left tradition discussing organizing that don't emphasize the importance of unleashing the creativity and leadership of those you are organizing.
But that doesn't mean, as Zach argues:
The only thing those groups sometimes lacked, was prior technical knowledge of specific strategies to win specific campaigns (e.g. knowledge of how anti-union campaigns worked, or knowledge of legislative intricacies and lobbying details).
This reduction of organizers to providing mere technical support misses the profound social skills needed to be a great organizer. A good organizer has to have the psychology skills to deal with the individual fears, whether of social disapproval of peers or from those with power over them, that often hold back those with natural leadership from taking action.. Organizers also need deep, deep engagement with the festering racial, gender and class inequalities that divide people-- and the skills to overcome them to create on-the-ground unity and coordination between local leaders. And yes, they do need, at times, "the vision thing" to place local battles in the context of national struggles, both to help folks struggling with the local battle see where it fits and to avoid a degeneration into NIMBYism or self-satisified union privilege that successful local victories can occasionally fall into.
Which takes us to "online organizing." Online communication is amazing in performing exactly the technical functions that Zach highlights and blogs and MoveOn have achieved amazing success with that. Folks like Wes and Eli and Zach and top blog folks have messaging skills that are tremendous assets to the movement.
But it's not the same thing as the organizing skills Alinsky or Ganz is talking about. Organizing in that sense is inherently individual and local. By its nature, most great organizers are barely known outside organizing circles since when they do their jobs right, they are nearly invisible.
Real organizing does transform people. It doesn't "enlighten" them, but does help people overcome both the personal and cultural barriers that hold all sorts of leaders back from being as effective as they could be. We live in a country riddled with racial, gender, class, and skill divides and overcoming them to create a united movement is not easy.
It is profoundly dangerous to assume that people will "organize themselves" since that usually means that those with already existing privileges, of both money and social status, will end up running local structures, whether they are really the best leaders or not. Organizers at their best cut through those existing hierarchies and create bonds that go beyond embedded structures of those local privilege.
It's tough work and we inherently underinvest progressive resources in organizing. Unions are slowly overcoming decades of decline due to their underinvestment in organizing and folks in political and other forms of organizing really do need to understand why organizing is more than "technical assistance" but a profound challenge to existing structures of psychological and cultural contraints on individual lives.
As Zach emphasizes, many so-called organizers don't overcome their own personal limits to reach that goal, but that's all the more reason for us to struggle to find the organizers who can. Some may come from enthusiastic college educated professionals but many more will be recruited in a reinforcing cycle from communities where organizers work. That is the virtuous cycle we need to achieve real social change.
This is outstanding, Nathan. Thank you.
Many, probably most, online activists have never experienced organizing of the kind you're describing.
April 2, 2007 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Many, probably most, online activists have never experienced organizing of the kind you're describing."
And I suspect few others do either. I'm afraid that Nathan is describing the ideal and it is certainly not my experience, which includes a much regretted involvment in trying to form a union shop and several encounters with communnity organizers in my neighborhood
Jack
April 2, 2007 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it's the ideal-- that's why we're discussing the probems in organizing. But there have been periods in American history when organizing has been the priority, when top talent from the progressive side dedicated themselves to doing it.
Right now, the most prevalent organizing is happening is on the religious right-- they are recruiting and building grassroots institutions, megachurches and other organizations, and a fast clip. They are devoting large chunks of their resources to that work. It's a testament to their organizing that despite having views shared by only a minority of the population, they have such a strong hold on large parts of the political establishment.
April 2, 2007 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really appreciate this response, Nathan - thanks a lot. (And Nell, please read on - I'm not coming at this as an 'online organizer'.)
Exactly! But those organizers exist on every little assembly line, in every classroom, nursing home wing, etc...
YES! And: that kind of organizing is happening every day inside every workplace (and elsewhere) all the time -- by organic leaders. It *really* is. I didn't believe it was either at first. But we got sick of losing all our campaigns. So we went to work inside factories that were being organized to see what was going on. Lo and behold - there were plenty of amazing leaders -- just like you described above, with all those skills, negotiating racism, sexism, homophobia and class too. Brilliantly.
We learned that just because they don't come out for your campaign doesn't mean they're not there. For example, maybe they're staying out because our campaign is dumb, or not winnable, or just because we've patronized the hell out of them -- that's why I say, "Maybe It's Us."
Norma Rae is a great way to approach this. According to that movie, Rae was practically the only good organizer in the plant. And even she wasn't one like what you described above. She needed so much encouragement and support from her NY organizer. Her reluctance was seen as meekness, weakness that the organizer helped her overcome.
But I look at that situation very differently after having lost a lot of campaigns like that, and then won a bunch that we ran very differently. Ruben's strategy (in the movie anyways) was terrible. There's no way any real leader would sign on to that reckless campaign. Norma Rae (in the movie anyways) was not a leader to begin with - she was already the "bad" girl of the town. Had little reputation to lose, and not much influence over other workers. She was a wonderful, strong person-- but not a leader with followers. It was only a set of very dramatic circumstances that lead to Norma standing up and others following.
But to consistently win campaigns in real life, you can't count on things lining up in an especially dramatic way just right. You need all the strong leaders -- the strong leaders that are already there.
In my own experience, once we started looking for *already amazing* leaders as though they were there in great numbers, we found a whole a lot more than a single Norma Rae per factory. And we won every campaign we ran with that assumption.
April 2, 2007 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes! And I'd argue that they're recognition of *already developed* leadership among the people is one of the primary secrets to their success.
April 2, 2007 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't want us to talk past each other too much, since we agree on some basics. Yes, there are lots of great leaders out there and my training as an organizer way, way back was to assume you could identify 5-10% of the workforce as having those range of leadership skills-- and the key was to recruit them onto the organizing committee.
However, I disagree with your characterization of Norma Rae. There is no indication she was the only organizer. In fact, by the time she shows up at a union meeting, there are others already there. And while she's a "bad girl", she also has obvious influence and respect, both by the employers and other employees-- signified by her being made a supervisor and then her rejecting the position and returning to the line. The very point of the movie is that leaders are not always the obvious people, but it may take some organizing work to bring them out.
But I do think you are too Pollyannish that leaders just need to be let loose. Yes, that's a part of it, but there are real conflicts in the workplace that prevent spontaneous organizing, divisions sown by rightwing opponents politically and employers in the workplace, so there is a real role for organizers to engage the fears that drive individuals into such positions.
Yes, there are many strong natural leaders in any situation and many choose to exercise that leadership in defense of the safe status quo or even for reactionary purposes when fear overwhelms them-- the populist Nazi recruitment being a strong 20th century example.
So saying leadership is "out there" only gets you so far. The question is how do you overcome those divisions in society so that leadership serves to unite groups together, rather than pit them against each other between rival local factions? How do you find the leaders not of the status quo but who, currently neglected, can exercise leadership for social change?
April 2, 2007 3:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a very interesting post. I am not an organizer, as it is being discussed here. I am, however, a local Democratic town chair. Local politics does involve organizing obviously.
I think both Nathan and Zach's posts have merit. To organize people to do anything certainly requires the ability to motivate leaders that are already there. It also requires the ability to recruit new leaders to the cause.
One thought on Zach's technical skills comment. This absolutely true and should not be underestimated!
Example: a few years ago I attended a Dean Meet Up. I was very impressed with the attendence. There were close to 40 people assembled on the second floor of a bar. They were knowledgeable, passionate and interested in actually doing something! Anyone active in politics at any level knows those three things are hard to find. And finding it in a group that was not "organized" by someone is truly special. These people came through the Dean website, through word of mouth, etc.
But....you knew there was a but...the very method of their arrival. . . on their own and the fact that the entire point was that they weren't "organized" by the campaign or a professional or a specific person, was a problem.
The evening I attended they were actively engaged in writing letters to people in Iowa. That was fine. The problem was they were also talking about organizing a door to door canvas locally. It was clear at this point they didn't have a clue what they were doing. Not a scintilla of an idea on how to organize a canvas effectively.
A effective well planned canvas can be an incredibly effective campaign tool. I am happily represented by Congressman Chris Murphy who made it a staple and center piece of his campaign (recall he beat Nancy Johnson by 14 points when no one thought he could). A disorganized, amateurish, and poorly planned canvas on the other hand is less than worthless, a waste of time, and seriously runs the risk of motivating an opponent and/or turning off a voter.
Thus, and I am sure this is not that profound a point, while Nathan's points above are important, please don't lose the point that Zach made: good organizers can bring technical skills to better enable the organized to actually succeed. Without these skills we run the risk of losing the organized when a well intentioned but non-cogent plan fails to succeed.
April 2, 2007 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for this!
The only thing I think I'd add is that successful organizers keep at it and keep at it and keep at it and keep at it and...(you get the idea). The great campaigns took years, if not decades, with lots of setbacks and bruises en route. Deaths, too.
Once an organization is formed, the other difficult thing is knowing when to let go of it. One of the greatest testimonies to Saul Alinsky's expertise is that organizations he founded survive decades after his passing. The organizer knows he/she's succeeded when he/she is no longer necessary.
aMike
April 2, 2007 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes I think we agree on most of it. But this discussion is great because it's bringing out a key issue that I believe is having enormous consequences for the left.
If I'm being Polyannaish by saying there are organizers in workplaces, neighborhoods, etc... then can you tell me: where DO organizers come from? Sounds like you and I had similar backgrounds when we entered unions -- young, just out of college. What made us organizers? Or what even gave us the chance of being organizers?
If it was possible for us to be organizers so young and with so little experience, then why is it so hard to believe that there are many organizers among, say, a group of nursing home workers (who are mostly middle aged, have raised kids, are often leaders in churches, families, neighborhoods, etc... and have generally been to hell and back)?
I'm not saying the way to organize is to just "let leadership loose." The outside organizer has a key role. I think we've gotten down to the crucial difference here -- and this could not be a more high-stakes question for the left today...
Is the outside organizer's job:
A) to teach leaders how to overcome fear, recognize oppression, negotiate racism/sexism/homophobia/class divisions among workers?
or:
B) to create an opportunity for change by bringing outside resources (e.g. an outside organizer's time, strike fund, etc...) and specialized knowledge (e.g. strategies for countering anti-union campaigns, experience negotiating union contracts, etc...).
I'm arguing for B. Sure, it's wonderful if an outside organize can also play role A, as a colleague alongside the leaders inside. But if the outside organizer believes that leaders in the workplace are not also capable of playing role A in full, then they will find themselves patronizing experienced leaders (the Alinsky dialog I cited is the archetypal example) and causing them to sit out the campaign. It's a self-feeding cycle: If you don't expect to find organizers inside, you won't find them; and If you don't find them, then you won't expect them.
Several times, you raised race/gender/class divisions as something that outside organizers are needed to cope with. I realize this is just anecdotal, but in every campaign I witnessed (some when I was working inside plants), I never saw a situation where outside organizers helped on that front. I did see them (us) screw it up sometimes. But what I did see, over and over, was leaders inside workplaces ingeniously negotiating those divisions, overcoming bosses' attempts to divide, forging strong coalitions, etc... This is a big generalization, but in my experience it could not have been more clear that working class leaders are just better at that stuff than middle class organizers -- perhaps because they tend to work in much more integrated groups. (And, yes, this experience included the South--yes, even the rural South.)
April 3, 2007 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let me be clear on one point-- I don't think my background as a middle class educated guy was a great asset and I make no claims for being an amazing organizer. That's one reason I put my skills more in service to policy worker and technical coordination.
I do think great organizers should come from the communities organized and use their skills negotiating these internal divides to help others with those shared lessons.
WHere we differ is that you see the barriers to success as intellectual-- if we figure out the smart strategy (and you rightly think people on the ground are very smart), then we win. But I'm stressing the psychological barriers, the embedded fears and conservative hierarchies that retard social change. And it often takes an outside person to transcend those embedded conflicts precisely because they don't have a history; it's not that they do it on their own but they are a catalyst. And the important work organizers do is not intellectual work but emotional labor, something often missed when people talk about "theories" of organizing, since success is less about theory than emotional intelligence.
April 3, 2007 1:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Normally I don't rate posts to which I reply in agreement, but I'll make an exception here, Nathan. This is excellent. Especially your stress on the emotional intelligence required.
Zack, I've checked out your bio and clearly you've had some real experience in the labor movement, so perhaps some of my "young whippersnapper" comments here and in other threads were misplaced, and for them I apologize.
However, your stories about how easy it is to overcome obstacles if you just "rely on the people" are just too bloodless for me and don't resonate with my experiences. It ain't that simple and you'd better have a strong emotional balance if you are going to thrive in this arena.
Rely on the people, sure, but what do you do in these cases - all of which I experienced personally in my years in the movement:
1. You find a brilliant and dynamic worker, who is respected throughout the plant, with a keen native intelligence and a good tactical sense - who is also a raging alcoholic - which is a secret from no one, and he keeps getting elected to head the local anyway - until eventually, years after you thought he'd break, he finally can't take it anymore. He has to be put on leave of absence by the Executive Board and, fortunately, unlike many alcoholics, he manages to catch himself just BEFORE he hits rock bottom, gets into AA and manages to salvage himself and his position.
2. In the middle of a decertification campaign, your well-liked local treasurer succumbs to a heroin habit he'd managed to kick for fifteen or so years (which nobody knew about) and he starts embezzling funds from the local treasury, a hundred here, a hundred there, until he's found out owing more than a couple paychecks to the local. Now the rest of the union leadership and organizers have to decide whether they'll make the theft public (which is probably their legal duty) and blow the decert campaign and destroy the union for the rest of the workers, or cover the thing up? What's the RIGHT thing to do?
3. Never underestimate the tremendous value to a worker of being able to get off the shop floor, if not fulltime, then maybe a few days a month. Just not working on the job is a relief, plus at least some of the union work is fun. Don't kid yourself, it's a BIG draw and the people it draws may or may not be the best ones for the union job. The guy who's a great rank-and-file rabble-rouser may or may not have the kind of administrative skills needed to fulfill the duties the workers need him to fulfill. Nothing is sadder than seeing a great leader in the organizing campaign fall flat when he has administrative functions to fulfill, sitting on his ass in an office, not knowing what to do. Nothing is more inspiring than to see one who pulls it off on both sides of unionism. Or the woman who has no ambition other than to quietly be a shop steward and help her fellow workers - and does it very well, perhaps growing into a leadership role.
Please note, Zack, I'm NOT disagreeing with you that finding organizers within the workforce is better than relying on manipulative outsiders instead. I agree with that. If your union is nothing but people doing FOR other people, it's not worth having, no matter how smart those people are or think they are. What I'm disagreeing with is the idea that this is easy, a clear path, and something that was consciously avoided in the past. Nothing could be further from the truth. If it was that easy we wouldn't have
Oh, and wasn't "rely on the masses" Mao's slogan? Sorry, slogans aren't enough.
April 4, 2007 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I actually agree with you 100% -- I'm not sure where the disagreement is. I think I'm just not being clear enough, or explaining my context well enough -- or something.
In your comments, you've painted several pictures of flawed leaders -- but important skilled leaders nonetheless. I haven't argued "just let the people lead" -- that was how Nathan understood my post, but not what I meant.
April 15, 2007 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink