Perspectives on Community Organizing

Conflict versus Consensus Organizing

Community organizing focuses on shifting inequitable balances of power which adversely effect and/or alienate a population. Conflict organizing & consensus organizing are two modes of community organizing that employ different strategies for community intervention. There is also differences in the projected outcome of these two approaches. 

Conflict organizing is often aimed at calling people's attention to a certain problem or condition and it assumes that the opposing side must concede to a demand. It might be based on contesting power hierarchies and battling for a specific or set of causes. Consensus organizing is focused on implementing a project that builds on the mutual self interest of both sides rather than forcing a concession from the opposing side. A consensus organizer can't necessarily afford to disrupt or demonize the other side as one of their main focuses will be based on finding common ground. Prof Hawkin's summarized one of his student's reflections on consensus organizing: "What Ive learned through this process is that I can better get what I want by figuring out how to help you get what you want". Essentially a consensus organizer must put themselves in the shoes of the person or organization they will be negotiating with.

Saul Alinsky, considered the grandfather of conflict organizing, urged activists to consider how symbols are used to convey messages. We discussed in Prof Hawkin's class how Alinsky was attuned to the idea that if you want to use a metafor to convey discontent then you must understand how that metaphor is going to be interpreted by the general public or target audience. Alinksy was opposed to the use of flag burning in opposition to the Vietnam war because it did not effectively communicate a solution or alternative to war and further offended and alienated the public from the anti-war movement.

One of the differences between the two different modes of community organizing is the outcome and strategy for achieving this outcome. At the end of conflict organizing you are trying to achieve a succession from the opposition. For example when Dolores Huerta and Cezar Chaves were organizing the Delano Grape Strike with the United Farm Workers they used boycotts and picketing efforts in order to establish a minimum wage and collective bargaining rights for immigrant farm workers. They collaborated with several other unions in order to achieve an effective and cohesive boycott, such as the International Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, who would not load nonunion grapes onto shipments. The boycott eventually lead to their victory against the DiGiorgio Corporation and Schenley Industries. 

One of the first figure that comes to my mind when I think about community organizing in the United States is Dolores Huerta. She is an accomplished community organizer that lead stikes and political rallies mobilizing Latinos towards union organizing, labour rights, gender equality and political representation. Along with Cesar Chaves she cofounded the National Farmworkers Association in 1962. Her foundation's mission is "to create a network of organized communities pursuing social justice through systemic and structural transformation". 

National Women's Hall of Fame video about D. Huerta

I found the following excerpts especially relevant to the social work values of employing a strengths based approach, acknowledging the self determination of your client and working to help people empower themselves. “As an organizer you also have to keep in mind that....when people get involved they really transform, they get stronger and the work that they do transforms other people and that makes the community stronger and our world stronger.”

Huerta, shortly after receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom

While not all the contents of this next TED video below are relevant to this post, starting at minute 6:45 Emiliano Salinas describes an example of coordinated civil action or non violent community organizing that is startling and effective in the face of terrorism and fear.

I was having a hard time thinking of how a consensus approach could be employed in situations where entities are fundamentally at odds, human rights have been violated and oppressive practices employed.  I then remembered the amnesty decision during Brasil's transition from dictatorship to democracy. In order for the country to transition as a cohesive unit and collaborate in establishing a democracy, both sides of the long standing conflict between the authoritative military power establishment and the opposition that often times employed violence to oppose the regime, were pardoned of their crimes. This enabled both sides to work together in the future and established some common ground. If there had not been vocal and effective opposition to the military regime via conflict organizing, the opportunity for consensus organizing might not have occurred. Perhaps the necessity and use of these two different modes are reflective of unique moments in history, such that successful conflict organizing can lay the framework for future consensus organizing.