Communities had to be created, fought for, tended like gardens. They expanded or contracted with the dreams of men.
The Social Construction of Reality
Although President Obama may not heard of the eminent sociologist Peter Berger, Obama’s quote above fits within Berger’s ideas about the social construction of reality. More to the point, Rubin and Rubin (2008) continually bring up phrase “socially constructed” in Chapter 5. Therefore, I think it is important that Berger’s ideas be explored here. The key question of social construction theory is “how [is] everyday reality …socially constructed (Wallace and Wolf 2006:286)?” The efforts of Berger and his colleague Thomas Luckman is one of the few “…attempt[s] to bridge the micro-and macrosociological levels of analysis (Wallace and Wolf 2006:287).”
According to Wallace and Wolf (2006), Berger and Luckman viewed the construction of reality as something that arises out of the interaction people have with each other. The first part of the dialectical process involves people engaging in some activity that “creates” some aspect of reality. This phase is called externalization. Once people become aware of what they have created, that activity is objectified—usually through language and symbols. The final phase in this process is internalizing the objectified activity. In other words, people become socialized to the objectified reality they had a part in constructing.
Regarding perceptual communities as discussed in Rubin and Rubin (2008), outsiders react to those they perceive as different by grouping and labeling the target group in some way. These grouping and labeling activities become objectified in the minds of outsiders (e.g. the “Black” community, the “White” community). The labels and all their connotations are then internalized and passed on to new members. When the target group takes on the identity, it then becomes a solidarity community. It is important to remember that members of the solidarity community interact with each other, objectify their interactions with each other, and then internalize this modified reality of their group.
Opponents of community organizers in recent U.S. politics tried to portray or frame community organizing in a negative light. Several conservative leaders used labels such as socialists and associate community organizing and particularly President Obama’s service as centered on “…inner cities, the poor, racial minorities, troublemakers and radicals (Dreier and Moberg 2008:17).” Their efforts to paint organizers in a negative light have been instrumental in creating a sour perception that many Americans have about community organizing. The key question remains, however “…how do we reckon with and frame the appropriate understanding and meaning of being a community organizer (Rathke 2008:37)?” Indeed, opponents to community organizers who so critical of Saul Alinsky (1971) have used his tactic of “Pick[ing] the target, freez[ing] it, personal[izing] it, and polariz[ing] it.”
Some communities construct their own reality and identities using the same dialectical process mentioned above. These identity communities, like any other communities, continually reconstruct themselves to suit changing social contexts. Sometimes people run into difficulties with identity groups. For example, Rubin and Rubin (2008) mention sexual orientation and disability (deafness) as two identity groups. But does a person have to be gay or deaf to be a part of either the gay or deaf communities?
Who are community organizers as a group? Dreier and Moberg (2008:20) wrote:
There are now thousands of local groups that mobilize people around a wide variety of problems. There are at least 20,000 paid organizers in the United States, according to Walter Davis, executive director of the National Organizers Alliance. They work for community groups, environmental groups, unions, women’s and civil rights groups, tenant organizations, churches and school reform groups—touching the lives of millions of Americans every day. They work long hours, usually for low pay.
As the quote above points out, issue communities form to combat particular problems. Like the communities described above, members of issue communities interact with each other and go through Berger’s externalization phase. They then become aware of and objectify the issue. Finally, members internalize that “objectified” issue. Along with the defining what the problem is members also construct solutions. Different groups settle on different solutions. For instance, the progressive community in Mississippi supports the notion that government plays a vital role in bringing about positive change in the Delta Region. Conservatively oriented issue groups most likely have an alternate vision of government. Pete Johnson (2008) wrote “The future of the Delta rest with its people and their communities not with the federal government or state governments.” My understanding of Johnson’s article leads me to thing that he believes the solution for many of the problems in the Delta is through economic routes—especially if those routes are at the local level. Setting aside the obvious question of how local economies fulfill his many recommendations without state or federal help, Johnson’s view is shared by members of an issue group whose raison d’être is that the market place, not government, is the solution to the various problems in the Delta.
A lot of community organizing occurs within the neighborhoods. However, some issues transcend the local level and involve state and national politics. The political unrest in Wisconsin affects neighborhoods, school districts, counties, the state, and even the nation. Activist at all levels need to network with citizens and fellow organizations to combat rise of union bashing emanating out of the state that ironically that gave the nation its first public worker collective bargaining organization, worker’s compensation, unemployment insurance, and the 40 hour work week.
Social Capital
Social capital is the groups/association/interactions a person possesses. In contrast, human capital is the education, skills, and other intrinsic qualities a person has. Human capital is what you know; social capital is who you know. There are two types of social capital: bridging social capital that is inclusive or allows all to enter. Bonding social capital, on the other hand, refers to groups or associations which restrict membership along some criteria. Bridging social capital not only benefits the individual but makes the community a better place to live. These insights into social capital not only apply to individuals but to groups.
Following the Rohall (1997), power centers on centrality and exclusion. Ask yourself who do people go to in an organization (centrality) and does that person have the ability to exclude people or resources? The authors suggest that exclusion, rather than centrality, is where true power lies. I want to mention Michel’s Iron Law of Oligarchies. You may have observed that most actions tend to be done by a small band of people, no matter the size and type of organization. This taps, again, into the centrality concept. This small group of people not only possesses centrality but has the power to admit or exclude people. They are the “gate-keepers.”
In past classes, I mentioned the role of professors and others in helping students secure a job. The link between professor and student is “weak” in that professors and students do not share the same level of interaction that a parent and child does. Granovetter’s concept of weak links is based on the idea that weak links are very powerful in people’s lives because it is these types of links (e.g. professor-student) that lands a person a job. A letter of recommendation doesn’t come from your family or friends but from employers and professors. Likewise, community organizers should never discount loose affiliations and weak links—they may provide the key to success.
Resources
Alinsky, Saul. 1971. Rules for Radicals: A Practical Primer for Realistic Radicals. New York: Vintage Books.
Dreier, Peter and David Moberg. 2008. “Community Organizers: Thank You, Sarah Palin.” Social Policy. 38:17-21.
Johnson, Pete. 2008. “A New Paradigm for Development.” The Greene County Democrat. 117:7.
Obama, Barack. 2007. Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. 1st ed. New York: Crown Publishers.
Rathke, Wade. 2008. “Community Organizing at Center Stage.” Social Policy. 38:36-45.
Rohall, David E. 2007. Social Psychology: Sociological Perspectives. Boston, MA: Pearson/Allyn and Bacon.
Rubin, Herbert J., and Irene S. Rubin. 2008. Community Organizing and Development. 4th ed. Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon.
Wallace, Ruth and Alison Wolf. 2006. Contemporary Sociological Theory. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall.
As a young black living in a melting pot of America. I feel as if more of my people are being lazy or just being satisfied with being in the condition of being ignorant. For example we say we want jobs but we don’t do anything to get the job. We sit on our behinds and have our hands out saying ” The world still own me my Forty acres and Mule.”