The literature on community organizing is vast. Each organizing effort is an interesting story of struggle and unbridled idealism. Many, if not all, organizing efforts are genetically related to the earlier civil rights movements of the 60s. A good summary of those relationships has been presented by Gary Delgado as a preface to a detailed description of ACORN.[16] Our interest here is not in historiography, but philosophy. This will entail looking at organizing strategies and the overall vision that held this movement together. A fundamental thesis is that in spite of the good intentions of community organizers, the lack of a sophisticated moral philosophy hampers long-term interpersonal development. Participatory democracy and other forms of radical democratic activity ring hollow if not imbued with a sophisticated social ethic or moral system. Consequently, neighborhoods may become organized, more citizens from the underclasses may register to vote, but their relationship to their neighbors remains the same. Their position within the complex array of differing communities does not change appreciably, for the simple reason that change has not been envisioned and is not sought at those levels. If people are organized and educated solely to appropriate power without appreciating the subtle and intricate relations between poser, politics, religion, culture, etc., then fundamental ethical transformations cannot be expected.

ACORN evolved from the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO), which originated in Boston, MA. The NWRO, as a result of an awareness of some of its own weaknesses, sought to facilitate meaningful ties with other progressive organizations, like churches, labor unions, and civil rights groups.[17] Little Rock, Arkansas and New Orleans were chosen as sites because of their miserable records vis-à-vis welfare rights recipients: thus, the birth of the Arkansas Community Organization for Reform Now (ACORN).

The chief organizer for ACORN, Wade Rathke, realized that a movement based solely on welfare rights would be severely limited and limiting. True to the intentions of NWRO insights, Rathke set out to take full advantage of relationships with other groups. The motivation for doing this can best be summed up by observations from the ACORN Organizing Handbook:

...other poor people’s and minority-based organizations of the late 60s – never had the potential for achieving any real power. For one thing, they were, by definition, minority-based. Given America’s political system, that meant they would never achieve any wide-ranging political power. But even more important, center and right-wing politicians, the welfare bureaucracies, and the media succeeded in convincing the broad working class majority of the country that what the minority groups wanted was a piece of their pie. And given the tax structure that was going to have to support increased welfare and people’s benefits, it wasn’t too hard to do this convincing. The necessary allies of the welfare and minority groups, then, became their enemies, and the majority coalition itself thoroughly divided, and ultimately defeated even before it had a chance to be born.[18]

This analysis evolved through personal experience with the welfare rights movement. But it was also reflected in other movements nation-wide, most notably the International Areas Foundation (IAF). The IAF, Saul Alinsky’s project, had measured short-term success, but lacked the framework and vision for long-term stability. Rathke was intent on merging elements from both movements. The welfare rights model relied on membership lists, strategic manipulation, and it was a replicable model. The IAF model, on the other hand, was committed to establishing ties with established organizations, like labor and the churches. Besides fusing these elements, the need to experiment with electoral politics became evident. This new awareness of the necessity to experiment in electoral politics was an extraordinary step for community organizing. It was a step rarely done before.

All social movements and community organizing efforts must contend with several fundamental organizing issues. Chief among them is, for whom is the organizing done? Whether implicitly addresses or explicitly spelled out in movement literature, the answer to this question both provides the direction and shapes the constituency.

It was clear to Rathke that the fundamental driving force of ACORN should be raising questions about the distribution of power. Going beyond single-issue mentality, he argues that winning stoplights and fixing roads were simply manifestations of the prime interest of locating power and redistributing it. Without this awareness, it becomes a movement concerned solely with instrumental ends. Consequently, the answer “for whom?” was “all of the people in the country who are shut out of that power.”[19]

Once the mass constituency has been defined, the next level of organizational issues to be settled was how to develop for them – by what means and process? Based on the assertion that low-to-moderate-income people are relatively powerless to affect the processes having the greatest effect on their daily lives, a slogan “The People Shall Rule” was adopted. This implied the course of action that ACORN would take; namely, to be a multi-issue movement. ACORN understood its mission as taking a stand on any issue of potential concern to its constituency.

ACORN deviated from standard community organizing in two significant ways. First, the fundamental organizational philosophy stressing the mass constituency, a multi-issue platform, and the redistribution of power pointed to a logical outlet: electoral politics. While other community organizations shied away from joining politicians, ACORN realized from the start that they had to join the political fray. Second, Rathke reasoned early on that a movement that is not self-sufficient is done for. Consequently, all operating expenses were raised through membership dues. Members must have a willingness to organize and support the movement, otherwise it dies. This was a radical departure from the community organizing (CO) tradition, which has and still does rely on outside funding.

Participation, however, was problematic. Rathke noted that even in organized neighborhoods only 10-15% of the people were active.[20] This meant that the ‘mass constituency’ was really only a minority. It mean that membership was severely constrained. This observation spurred the plans to organize in other ‘communities’ and to “penetrate into other spheres of people’s lives – their jobs, schools, politics, culture, etc.”[21] The expansion process implicit in entering other spheres developed into a fateful tension which would frame the organization’s discussions and debates for the near future; namely, the tension between maintenance and expansion.

ACORN, on the whole, was and is very successful. The early years of growth introduced changes in thinking about CO strategy – new constituencies were sought and organized. But ACORN was not without its detractors. Public official were always critical of the movement. It seemed that as ACORN became more efficacious, the stridency of the criticisms grew: from being “unnecessary” to being called a “threat to capitalism and democracy.”[22]

Also, other organizations working with the same constituencies became resentful, though it appears that their criticisms were partly justified. In the early years, the JayCees welcomed and lauded the changes that ACORN was trying to effect. Later, they were condemned by the same group. Additionally, in 1974, ACORN and its affiliate, NWRO of Arkansas, split over differences. The criticisms of the latter organization against ACORN were similar to others, namely, that ACORN cared more about power than the poor.

These biting criticisms were the direct result of ACORN’s decision to expand its membership base and the establishing of contacts with other spheres of people’s lives. Consequently, though welfare mothers we, indeed, in the trenches, non-welfare poor were actively recruited. Moreover, expansion to include moderate-income people was perceived as a betrayal of the poor by many observers. Delgado reports that many community organizations achieve similar levels of short-term success, but deteriorate after several years. ACORN’s remarkable success and stamina can be attributed to the replicability of its organizational model.[23]

We have looked in a cursory manner at the development of ACORN. In addition to the other characteristics, which made ACORN unique in community organizing, its ability to respond to the decision to expand also made the organization stand out. As mentioned above, the ACORN model was replicable. This, and the fact that ACORN was able to attract and train competent staff and leadership, enabled the organization to rapidly expand into twenty-seven states and thirty-five cities. However, this model also prevents the serious consideration and development of a social ethic or religious moral values. To reiterate, the goal of the model is

...the building of a “mass community organization” able to develop “sufficient organizational power to achieve its individual members’ interests, its local objectives, and in connection with other groups, its state interests. The organization must be permanent with multi-issued concerns achieved through multi-tacticed [sic] direction action, with membership participating in policy, financing and achievement of group goals and community improvement.”[24]

ACORN adopted the need-satisfaction paradigm of its earlier NWRO affiliate: “the need to build a cohesive community, based on consensually agreed upon benefits, the need to offer tangible benefits and the need for professional organizers to identify issues to which the organization can rally.”[25]

In light of ACORN’s history, development and methods Delgado came to a number of conclusions about the organization, several of which are pertinent to our discussion. Though the model has been highly successful due to its replicable structure, the hierarchical aspects have proved to be problematic. Many of these problems are manifest in staff/leadership confusions. One of the purported goals of CO is to go in to communities to develop leadership from indigenous citizens. With ACORN’s membership overwhelmingly poor and Black, and of those the majority of whom are women, those percentages should be represented throughout the organization. Unfortunately, nearly the complete staff of ACORN is (was, 1984) composed of northern, college-educated, white males. This is not to detract from their good intentions or work, but numbers do, in fact, fly in the face of the logic of their mission.

One way to look at this situation is that this organization was interested and geared towards effecting change from the top-down. They were organizing for the community, not with the community. The difference of perspective reveals an arrogance deeply embedded in organizing mentality. It is a denial that members of a poor community are, in fact, corrigible and capable of a similar commitment. If these organizing efforts were based on ecumenical democracy and dialogue, organizers would ensure the conditions for strengthening these communities. The key is to turn that switch on so that internal/external identities are also forged.

One of the strategies developed, making it unique among community organizations, was an electoral campaign strategy. Though this illustrates the need to be effective both at the grass-roots level – bottom-up – and on capitol hill – top-down – their vision was ill-conceived. Without a coherent vision on the needs of community based in an ecumenical political dialogue, there can be no hope of change. Power may shift hands, but the essential constraining structures remain in place.[26]

We have seen that ACORN was meant to be a multi-issue organization. The problem is, of course, who defines the problems? Again, these necessarily need to be issues of concern to the community, as defined in multi-leveled terms. This means that getting school lunches or a stoplight fixed in fine on one level, but on another, broader issues like human rights, racism, and sexism also need to be addressed. These latter issues cut across all levels and classes and have a great impact on the everyday lives of the least empowered. By focusing solely on the appropriation of power, and its redistribution to special interests, individual civic responsibility cannot be emphasized. When mutual self-interests are esteemed more than the basic social facts of being-in-community and interdependency, then the present socio-political system is reproduced unwittingly.

A central concern to our discussion on ecumenical political dialogue is the development of the awareness of the Other. Implicit in a commitment to dialogue is the tolerance to listen to and understand her. This evolves through internal dialogue with the ‘removed Other’, or the not-of-us-Other. ACORN had the intention of establishing relations within other spheres of their member’s lives, but through the lack of a well-thought out program embodying an ecumenical politics, their attempts were meager and not well received. ACORN was content with making contact with other social institutions, like churches, and labor, but desired their endorsements, rather than participation and input. As a result, ACORN earned the reputation of being uncooperative and competitive.

Ideologically, ACORN was considered neutral. I think though that this is an unreflective use of the word: the concept of neutrality is problematic. It is questionable whether, in fact, that can ever be the case. While this label undoubtedly refers to obvious political affinities: Marxist, Socialist, social democratic, or a whole host of others, these labels themselves, or the lack of them, obscure other subtle and hidden, but equally powerful ideologies. The lack of critical reflection on the part of the staff, individually and collectively, as to their mission in the community and within a particular socio-political system restricted the usefulness of this organization for effecting a real transformation to ecumenical politics.

In concluding this section, I have not meant to belittle the need for and intentions of community organizations. In our political system they are often the first offensive line in retaking and remaking the public sphere. However, the critique of these COs should also not be taken lightly. Embedded in a particular socio-economic perspective, they are laden with assumptions, which prevent them from truly becoming liberating social movements. The argument has been made that the mere redistribution of power with out the concomitant imparting of an ecumenical politics through dialogue will leave the poorest communities always struggling to recapture their rights. Without dialogue with Others – different organizations, middle- and upper-class constituents – these Others remain resentful of the poor continually trying to take their piece of the pie. In the end, all communities remain morally impoverished.

Primeira Página • Página Anterior • Próxima Página • Última Página