The Internet, Alinsky and the Bourgeois Revolt
As the son of a community organizer and now a reporter who covers organizing, I've been following Marshall and Heather's dialogue with interest. They both zero on the question of why it is that there has been this resurgence in organizing over the last few years. It's a resurgence I've been covering, and every time I call around to my sources, I always hear the same thing: "This is different; it hasn't been like this before."
One obvious answer, which both Marshall and Heather point to, is the growth of the internet and its ability to connect people with similar interests, politics and worldviews. And I'd like to hear their thoughts in some more depth about the potential and limits of the internet as an organizing tool. When Alinsky sought to organize the Back of the Yards, he gravitated towards the churches because he realized immediately that it was the churches that were the stores of social capital in the neighborhood. And social capital = power, particularly for those folks not lucky to have access to a lot of financial capital. The entire Industrial Areas Foundation method (utilized by a young community organizer named Barack Obama while organizing on Chicago's far south side) involved leveraging the social capital of parishes towards achieving the interests of the community members. That's an oversimplification, but it gets at something essential about Alinsky's approach: you find the sources of pre-existing power in a neighborhood and you try to build on them.
The $64,000 question is to what degree the internet can instantiate social capital in the very real and immediate way that neighborhood parishes did in the Back of the Yards. Much of the post 1970s decline in organizing (and indeed the fate of the Democratic party and progressives) can be tied, I think, to the unraveling of much of the social capital our constituencies used to have. This process has been documented quite famously by Robert Putnam and Theda Skocpol. So can the internet reverse the trend? I used to be aggressively skeptical on this score, but the innovations of the last few years have made me more optimistic. MoveOn, for example, has been finding ways to use the internet to actually, physically bring people together and build organization and capacity. The potential of this is just beginning to be tapped.
But there's a problem with the internet as well. Very few poor and working class people are spending their time on progressive blogs or attending MoveOn vigils. There's no single demographic profile of the "netroots" but the closest data we have -- a Pew survey of committed Howard Dean supporters from 2004 -- reveal a constituency that is overwhelming white, educated and upper-middle class. Of course, being white and educated (if not upper middle class) myself, there's nothing wrong with progressives of that demographic profile organizing and building power, indeed, it's proving to be essential for the larger growth of the progressive movement. But bracketing Marshall's point about a "moral vision" for a moment, organizing in the Alinsky tradition is about interests, and I wonder how those interests will be pursued and how they will jibe with the interests of other components of the broad center-left, progressive coalition.
In short: The netroots phenomenon is a bourgeois revolt. Look at the inequality data for the last six years and you see that the concentration of wealth in the upper-most portion of the distribution has come at the expense, chiefly, of the upper middle class. Like the restless activists in the Third Estate of France, the people driving this new organizing resurgence and participating in it are people that are not generally used to feeling disempowered. This is a tremendous asset since half of what organizers do is teach people to demand things, and the upper middle class is already habituated to do just that. But I wonder what effects the socio-economic profile of the new progressive vanguard will have on the future of the movement. I see three possibilities
1) The internet continues to become democratized and less limited to the professional class
2) The movement functions by finding the points of common interest between its different class components (universal health care, ending the war in Iraq)
3) The movement increasingly pursues policies like, for instance tax credits for college tuition that disproportionately benefit educated professionals, to the detriment of the poor and working class.
I'm an optimist, so I'm betting on 1 and 2.
Comments (22)
The massive street protests in LA organized by latino youth using myspace show that generationally we will be seeing more online organzing happening from people of diverse backgrounds.
And I'm totally with you on Robert Putnum and I hope you are right in projecting possibilities 1 and 2. I know many folks who will be working to make sure that's what happens. great piece!
March 30, 2007 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget cell phones. The essential organizational elements of the internet will be present on almost all of hand held computers called cell phones within the next year.
March 30, 2007 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're making a lot of assumptions based on a survey of Howard Dean supporters.
When was this survey taken, anyway? Because I wouldn't be surprised if Wes Clark --- who also had a lot of support online --- was more diverse in his followers.
But even the stats you give on the followers are nebulous. White, educated, upper-middle class.
I don't see anything about income there.
There was a time when bourgeois generally meant wealthy factory owners who came from the commoners, not the aristocracy.
Now I'm white, educated, and "culturally" upper-middle class, but I think our household income is less than most (white) working class families in our area.
So is bourgeois meant to be a cultural reference? Yet when it is used in that way, it tends to refer to "low" art, to mass culture, mass-produced, and disapproving church-goers with an anti-intellectual bias. I'll admit to some mass culture preferences, but not to the rest.
I'd like to see some clarity of terms. Maybe the old divisions aren't relevant any more. I don't know. But just what and who we are is important. I don't think we can understand our goals without this self-knowledge.
March 30, 2007 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the Philippines, the last "Edsa" popular uprising against a leader was in large part effectuated through text messaging.
Having said that, I suspect that cell phone ownership might be higher among middle-to-working class people in the developing world than in the U.S., since in many parts of the world, it is a very cost effective alternative to a land line.
March 30, 2007 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
But there's a problem with the internet as well. Very few poor and working class people are spending their time on progressive blogs or attending MoveOn vigils...The netroots phenomenon is a bourgeois revolt.
To the extent this problem is a digital divide/access problem, the numbers show this is quickly changing. Pew/Internet has a number of relevant studies:
- Latinos comprise 14% of the U.S. adult population and about half of this growing group (56%) goes online
- Surveys fielded in 2006 show that internet penetration among adults in the U.S. has hit an all-time high. While the percentage of Americans who say they use the internet has continued to fluctuate slightly, our latest survey, fielded February 15 – April 6, 2006 shows that fully 73% of respondents (about 147 million adults) are internet users
- Adoption of high-speed internet at home grew twice as fast in the year prior to March 2006 than in the same time frame from 2004 to 2005. Middle-income Americans accounted for much of the increase, along with African Americans and new internet users coming online with broadband at home. At the end of March 2006, 42% of Americans had high-speed at home, up from 30% in March 2005, or a 40% increase.
Certainly, there's room for improvement among the poor. And perhaps this is a cap to all this growth. But if you say the internet/organizing phenomenon is only at the beginning stages, then it seems to me there's a reason to be optimistic this won't remain a bourgeois revolution. The way technology works, things like computers and internet access start within the domain of the rich/well-to-do, but quickly spread out. Television at one time used to be "new." As Jay points out, too, cell phones will all soon have internet access, etc.
So if, over time, the netroots remains bourgeois, and access is not the problem, then we'll have to look at other reasons why the poor and working class stay home during the moveon vigils.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
March 30, 2007 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. I don't buy the 'digital divide' business. My 70 year old parents still have a rotary phone, but they have the internet. Computers aren't expensive like they once were.
I do agree with Hayes that the increase in organizing is more 'middle class' (I reject the 'upper' part) lately.
They are next on the list set for destruction - elites destroyed the working class or 'lower middle class' - working a retail job - you're just poor.
Now it seems even 'upper middle class' professional types like engineers are being threatened with outsourcing - just as the UAW is being squeezed now with outsourcing threats. For retail workers like in wal mart, hey lets face it, they DO NOT have any thing like a right to organize even though they are supposed to be able to by law.
I think since the GOP elites have been on such a tear, much of 'the left's' activities have been 'reactive' or defensive - protecting Social Security from the moneychangers on Wall Street for example.
For myself, I trace the current movement back to the Clinton impeachement.
It's an example of a voracious, ruthless, mostrous right wing, devoid of all scruple and so hypocritical it made your head hurt. They simply adopted this nihilistic Tom Delay/Gingrich attitude that they were going turn back the clock 200 years and break every one of their own rules to do it.
Despite the adoption of the word "Progressives" to describe left wing Democrats, it's really not Progress, but an effort to simply hold fast.
March 30, 2007 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not scientific, but periodically DailyKos does a demographic poll focusing on various aspects of the site's readership. They usually get a lot of responses, so it makes for a good, if ultimately informal, snapshot of that particular branch of the netroots. And, as you might expect, it trends educated, well-off, and (perhaps surprisingly) middle-aged, IIRC.
March 30, 2007 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
For progressive movements, the working class and minorities don't need the internet, they already have their church or union. They have more news sources ("Rap is CNN for Black People" - Chuck D).
White Liberals living in the suburbs need the internet. Suburban folk are limited to Cable TV and their local newspaper.
The internet encourages like minded people to group together, progressives aren't a like minded people. Rural vs. Urban, Religious (Blacks/Hispanics) vs. Non, Pro-life vs. Pro-Choice, and so forth, all pretty much breaks down by race and class.
Go to sites like freerepublic, little Green Footballs and you can see they are all pretty much a monolith of thought. There are cracks (free trade is the biggest one). But their main unifying theme is fear/hatred of Liberals.
The issue with the progressive movement it to find a balance between all the various factions, a give an take mentality.
Push too hard for economic justice, middle class suburbanites will flee. Push too hard for abortion rights, pro-lifers will flee. Push too hard for civil rights, white people will flee.
March 30, 2007 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
(with all due respect)
I see the danger, best not to push too hard on any of those issues, its better to stay Republican lite, like a DLC Democrat.
March 30, 2007 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're making a lot of assumptions based on a survey of Howard Dean supporters.
I think that's the sad truth! The working poor don't have the time to blog away and go out on visibility events... at least, that's what political organizers typically tell me.
I was also told that the poor don't vote and, thus, it wasn't worth the time to walk their neighborhoods.
During my time as a student teacher, my eyes opened up over the fact that the well run school districts were well run because the student's parents had a lot of connections to get money, resources, etc... for the school as well as build libraries and other things within the community itself.
The problem with Dean people is they think an "internet surge" is all it takes but I'd counter that success happens because a lot of people work to make it happen under the covers.
March 30, 2007 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
So if, over time, the netroots remains bourgeois, and access is not the problem, then we'll have to look at other reasons why the poor and working class stay home during the moveon vigils.
Another blog on TPM Issue Of Computer Resources talks about employees using resources for non-work tasks during work.
Imagine a wal-mart worker trying to use the in-store computers to make comments on a "let's unionize wal-mart" website.
I suspect that many companies will continue to shut off access to blogging and organizing during the day because it will slow down organizing, i think.
March 30, 2007 3:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's funny, liberal groups like to talk about building coalitions until they have to make a compromise.
For example, in 1977-1978 pro-life democrats held 125 seats, and the democrats held a strong Majority with 292 seats total.
In 2004 we 28 pro-lifers and 204 total democrats.
Today, we have 37 pro-life democrats and a majority of 233 seats.
The purge of the pro-life democrats set back Civil Rights, Workers, Trade and Immigration. And most importantly, did nothing for protecting abortion rights. Anti-abortion judges were confirmed with pro-choice republican support.
March 31, 2007 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
In considering how the Internet can support organizing (in addition to making distinctions between market and community, information and relationship), a key question is how the people most committed to a cause - and with the most access to resources to act on their commitment - use their time. Do they interact more intensely with people who think as they do? Or do they reach out not only to people who think differently, but who are far less motivated to participate at all.
One of the historic strengths of social movement - and electoral - organizing was that a key source of power was motivating the less motivated because the support of broad constituences grew one's political resources. My question about the Internet is how the connected can use it not only to connect with each other, but to reach out to the unconnected, unmortivated, and unengaged. Otherwise, it easily becomes an echo chamber.
I've always been a fan of Moses as the iconic organizer -- the Jew who is an Egyptian, a man of the oppressed, raised in the house of the oppressor; a person who comes to identify with the enslaved, but with access to resources of the master, the insider/outsider.
Organizing that doesn't engage those who most need power to deal with their challenges, may be interesting, but it won't do much to reorder the power relations responsible for their problems in the first place.
March 31, 2007 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Hayes remarks
Another reader remarked about Latino users connecting through MySpace. I'd like to remind people of Meetup, which makes a very important contribution to getting people together on a face - to - face basis. (The link takes one to the Democratic meetups...any one interested in meetups for knitters or canasta players can easily find the home page). Look down the right hand side and find pages of meetups popular with democrats:
All of these are organized by local "organizers". Don't see your particular cause/candidate mentioned? Then start a meetup group of your own and get organized. This is about as roots-oriented as one could possibly get. I attached myself to the Dean Campaign through Meetup, attending meetings in Providence, Newport, and in Iowa City, and met some really wonderful folks. (And no, they weren't all white or upper middle class). The age range was from perhaps 16 to over 60, and the numbers from perhaps 15 to 30, which is about all one can really interact with in a night of signing get out the vote letters and drinking one's favorite beverage. One thing I noticed about the meetings I attended. All were in inner city neighborhoods, and all were on bus lines. There's something to be learned from that. The atmosphere made one feel like a neighbor even if one was among strangers.
The problem of class is a more difficult and problematic. Social classes have become so geographically isolated from each other in this suburban sprawl America we've created. Organizing across class lines is going to require will and persistence and imagination. And it won't happen in a single election cycle. But one has to start sometime and somewhere if one thinks segregation by social class is a pernicious thing.
One organization which is making efforts that way is Class Action. The organization makes up in energy what it lacks in size and financial resources. I think readers here at TPM café would enjoy dropping by and reading some of the work there, and while there, getting on the group's mailing list.
aMike
March 31, 2007 10:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with Dean people is they think an "internet surge" is all it takes...
That's not at all true. Dean's "meetups" were internet-organized meetings that took place in real life. The web was used to organize real-life interaction. And if you even casually read a site like Daily Kos (which was born out of the "Dean people") or MyDD, you'll see that no one thinks "all it takes" is what can be done on the Internet. The limits of the web are clearly recognized.
Dissent Protects Democracy.
March 31, 2007 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I guess that, in general, I'm not a fan of the mentioned websites because they seem focused on on political critique rather than intellectual crique.
For example, I know that many democrats are for corn based ethanol even though it's a very regressive policy.
As far as I know, Dean just kept changing his message until it resonated and I was never sure if he actually believed in anything.
The internet did give us the opportunity to watch Gephardt and Dean fight so we'd be reminded that politicians are corrupt.... even if they look glossy.
March 31, 2007 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meet-Up works like a market place, people who want to meet up can find out about each other -- which is a useful thing. Building organization, however, especially if its goal is to contest power, requires training, strategic focus, motivation, decision making - in short leadership.
"Organizing" is not something that people who care just "know" how to do -- it must be learned, effective practices difffer from ineffective one; learning requires challenge, as much as support; etc. In short, it is as much a craft as any other skilled practice, except that coordinated collective action requires unusual levels of collaboration, etc.
Meet-Up creates opportunities for organization building, but without the "connective tissue" that skilled organizers contribute, it doesn't happen by itself, except in the very local spontaneous way that you describe. This is one reason the Dean campaign, despite lots of meet-ups, made such a poor showing outside of New Hampshire.
March 31, 2007 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't deny that training is important or crucial. My point was more that, through Meetup, I found the organizers. The organizers didn't find me. And at least the meetup sessions I attended were organized--to the extent that they had definite tasks to perform. I sat at a table (eventually, one evening, moving to the floor because there was not enough room to spread out), and hand wrote letters to registered voters in Iowa, telling them, in my own words, why I thought Howard Dean deserved their attention. I wasn't told what to say. I was given a list of names and addresses, paper and envelopes, and stamps, for which I was asked to make a contribution, though if I hadn't the cash with me the person in charge would have provided the stamps for me, free.
Through the Meetup, I casually learned about a poverty conference in NYC, which I attended, and through that, got networked to the Campaign for America's Future, which does provide training for organizers, and through which I contribute to scholarships for young men and women to use to attend the national meeting and training sessions in Washington, DC.
I think a little patience is called for. Tools need learning time before they're used effectively. The best of us are apprentices, not even journeymen, far less masters. I don't think any of us who hang around the TPM Café have celebrated our second anniversary yet. This is not Alinsky in the 1960s: This is Alinsky in his early years.
It is hard for me to remember that little or none of this was available in the 2000 election cycle. There wasn't all that much available in the 2004 cycle, until some pioneers saw the potential. MoveOn, at least the way I discovered it, seemed to be created to help defend Clinton from the spurious impeachment charges. It morphed into an organization with larger purpose later.
As for Howard Dean's poor showing, I don't think that can be blamed on the weakness of Meetups...which, in 2003, were a brand new thing. Rather, the same media which killed Senator Muskie's chances by accusing him of crying over insults to his wife, and made willful ridicule of Howard Dean's yell in a college gym (perfectly sensible in that context), plus a vicious assault on him by a certain Speaker of the House of Representatives from a neighboring state and his allies in Organized Labor) bear far more responsibility.
aMike
March 31, 2007 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
The one message Dean never changed was the Iraq war was idiotic. Dean is Chair of the Democratic National Committee and Gephardt is history (thank goodness for the latter). I think the Net can claim some responsibility for placing the national party in Dean's hands, and Dean, by insisting of staffing the party organization in all fifty states and challenging Republicans everywhere, may be responsible for synthesizing the best of electronic organizing and on-the-ground organizing. Patience, experiment, and thoughtful refinement of what we're learning now may take us far in the next few years.
aMike
March 31, 2007 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
amike,
A question about your experience, if you don't mind.
Was there a local emphasis in the meetings or were they mostly directed toward national campaigns?
Speaking as a sometime volunteer neighborhood organizer, I have found large single issues will get folks involved temporarily but social connections need to be developed for there to be a long-term commitment to the organization.
My experience with larger political campaigns is they love us when they need boots on the ground befor the elections but after the election they forget about the little part-time volunteer
Jack
March 31, 2007 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some of each
The national campaign was Howard Dean.
But the meeting in Newport and some of the meetings in Providence were related to Save the Bay, and the effort to stop putting a LPG terminal in either Narragansett Bay or Mount Hope Bay. So far, we've held them off, but I don't know if that will be the final case.
aMike
March 31, 2007 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's been a while since I thought about Dean's flakey embrace of peace but here's one take on his viewpoint:
According to an interview with Salon's Jake Tapper, when Dean was asked to clarify his Iraq position, Dean said that Saddam must be disarmed, but with a multilateral force under the auspices of the United Nations. If the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn't, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.
Of course, Kofi Annan has repeatedly let us know that the US occupation in Iraq is illegal so Dean was being as respectful of international law as Bush.
In my opinion, Dean was a warmonger who seemed to like every war in history except, at times, the Iraq War.
In general, Dean's current stature doesn't excite me since he was such a fraud, but then... I suppose that all politicians are frauds.
But I really liked Kucinich since he consistently spoke out for single payer health care and, very early on, told america about all the lies.
April 1, 2007 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink