Writing2.docx

Shirley Chisholm was the first African American woman in Congress (1968) and the first woman and African American to seek the nomination for president of the United States from one of the two major political parties (1972). In her presidential run, Chisholm managed to carry 151 delegates (10% of the total) at the Democratic National Convention, but in the end, black and feminist Democratic delegates were not overwhelmingly on her side. 
Her motto and title of her autobiography—Unbossed and Unbought—illustrated her outspoken advocacy for women and minorities during her seven terms in the U.S. House of Representatives. Despite this, feminist and black leaders were hesitant to endorse her. This speaks to the disparity amongst both feminist movements and African American movements. It seems rational to think that any underrepresented group might have similar goals related to social change, but in this case, the goals for white feminists and black men were entirely different. Merging the two proved difficult. Ultimately that year, a white male was elected president (Nixon).
The above story is relevant for many reasons here. Consider this fact: white males make up about 30% of the US population, yet hold about 65% of elected positions in government. Given what our textbook has taught us about organizing and attending to diversity, consider how frequently a social movement does not garner the attention of the majority of the population that they are trying to represent.
On page 52 of your textbook, the author discusses how to attend to diversity when organizing. After reading the text, answer the following questions:
1) How could we, as agents of social change, use this principle (and the others) to help us better represent our targeted groups? 
2) What is an organization that represents a minority group that has faced backlash for not attending to diversity?
3) Should we *have to* attend to diversity when organizing for social change? Why or why not?
Please answer each question in 5-6 sentences each. Double space and use 12 point font. Cite any sources used. Think critically and feel free to give your personal perspective, but remain respectful just as in discussions.
Kaufman, P. (2018, April 23). Intersectionality for Beginners. Retrieved from https://www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2018/04/intersectionality-for-beginners.html
Michals, D. (2015). Shirley Chisholm. Retrieved from 
https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/shirley-chisholm (Links to an external site.)

 
Rubric

Writing Assignment Rubric (3)

Writing Assignment Rubric (3)

Criteria

Ratings

Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeContent Learning Outcome

25 to >20.0 pts

Exemplary

Paper shows a full and critical understanding of the topic.

20 to >12.5 pts

Adequate

Paper shows an understanding of the topic.

12.5 to >5.0 pts

Needs Improvement

Paper may only show a partial understanding of the topic or concepts.

5 to >0.0 pts

Insufficient

Paper is lacking in key areas of understanding.

0 pts

No Marks

25 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeUse of Literature

25 to >20.0 pts

Exemplary

Student cites several sources and uses research appropriately throughout paper.

20 to >12.5 pts

Adequate

Student lists sources and mentions research.

12.5 to >5.0 pts

Needs Improvement

Student vaguely mentions research.

5 to >0.0 pts

Insufficient

Student does not appear to have mentioned research or completed necessary research.

0 pts

No Marks

25 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting and Organization Grammar, Spelling, Punctuation, Sentence Structure, Overall Writing Mechanics

25 to >20.0 pts

Exemplary

Student’s writing is exemplary with no errors.

20 to >12.5 pts

Adequate

Student’s writing has few errors.

12.5 to >5.0 pts

Needs Improvement

Student’s writing may be unorganized, have many errors, or is difficult to understand.

5 to >0.0 pts

Insufficient

Comprehension is challenging due to errors.

0 pts

No Marks

25 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQuality
Word Count/Paper Length, Addresses Topics, Shows Original Thought, Uses Critical Thinking

25 to >20.0 pts

Exemplary

Student followed all guidelines for word length, formatting, critical thinking, and research.

20 to >12.5 pts

Adequate

Student followed most guidelines for word length, formatting, critical thinking, and research.

12.5 to >5.0 pts

Needs Improvement

Student followed some of the paper guidelines.

5 to >0.0 pts

Insufficient

Most of the guidelines are not met.

0 pts

No Marks

25 pts

Total Points: 100

TEXTBOOK READING: Chapter 5: Organizing
Schwalbe, M. (2020). Making a Difference: Using Sociology to Create a Better World. Oxford University Press.

CHAPTER 5

Organizing

Imagine that you are having trouble with a boss. Maybe s/he is abusive or treats you and your co-workers unfairly. Or maybe there are problems with safety, pay, or scheduling. Any one employee who confronts the boss won’t have much power. The boss can say, “If you don’t like the situation, too bad. Find another job.” But if all the employees confront the boss together, things are different. The balance of power changes because a boss can’t fire everyone and keep a business going. In the face of organized resistance, the boss would have to listen and make changes.
To take another example, imagine that you and your neighbors are unhappy with local government. Maybe the city refuses to install stop signs to slow speeding traffic. Or maybe the city is permitting too much noisy commercial development nearby. Or maybe it’s failing to repair school buildings. Again, a lone citizen who complains might not get much response. But if hundreds of people work together to hold public officials accountable for their actions and pressure them during elections, then the chances of getting a favorable response would be much greater.
These examples are about the power of organizing to make a difference in the world. It’s not that we are always powerless as individuals; sometimes it’s possible to speak out and get the people responsible for solving a problem to take action. But when the people who can solve a problem are in positions of power and have no interest in solving the problem—either because they benefit from it or have other priorities—organized action is necessary. In fact, historically, it has always been some kind of organized action that has done the most to make the world a better place.
One reason this isn’t more widely recognized is that we’re taught to think about social change as occurring through acts of moral heroism by extraordinary individuals. Susan B. Anthony, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., Mohandas Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and others are held up as the leaders without which great freedom struggles would not have been won. But as important as these people were, they did not make change on their own. Change was accomplished by the coordinated action of thousands (sometimes millions) of people, most of whom did a lot of mundane work behind the scenes. This is still how change occurs.
Another reason that organizing doesn’t readily come to mind is that US labor history is not a required subject in school. In a US labor history course, students would learn that workers had to fight collectively, sometimes for years, to win victories over exploitive bosses, private police forces, and corrupt politicians. If more people were familiar with this history, they would know that making change does not depend on being a lone moral hero. They would know that making change—especially when people in power don’t want it to happen—requires organizing.
In the simplest terms, organizing is just bringing people together to work in a coordinated way toward common goals. If the minds and muscle of many people are effectively coordinated, the ability to get things done is greatly magnified. In a sense, this is what power is: the ability to get things done, even in the face of obstacles. Organizing is thus a way for people to build power and accomplish things that no individual could accomplish on his or her own. It is how pyramids and fortunes are built.
Organizing is also how domination is accomplished, and how pyramids and fortunes are built on the backs of the powerless. This is not to say that organizing is good or bad; it depends on the moral value of the goals being pursued. But there is here a general sociological principle, which is this: the disorganized are vulnerable to domination by the organized. This is why people who want to make change in pursuit of social justice are often stymied. They are simply not as well organized as the powerful. Organizing is a way to balance the scales of power.
Sociologists are not professional organizers, but we do know a lot about how organizing is accomplished, including what works and what doesn’t. This knowledge comes from studying social movements, grassroots community groups, and formal organizations (e.g., government agencies, corporations). It’s possible, on the basis of this knowledge, to draw out principles and tips to help guide efforts to organize people seeking change. That’s what I’ll offer here, starting with principles. To learn more about the nuts and bolts of organizing, see the sources listed at the end of the chapter.
A Few (More) Principles
I have already noted a few key principles: organizing is how humans do things that are beyond the power of individuals, major social change occurs through organized collective action, the disorganized are vulnerable to domination by the organized, and organizing can reduce imbalances in power among groups in society. If not for these basic truths, there would be no point in writing about organizing as a way to make the world a better place. Which is why I needed to introduce these ideas first. There are, however, several more basic truths about organizing that are equally important to keep in mind.

Self-interest isn’t necessarily selfish.
 Getting involved in an organizing effort usually means breaking from comfortable routines. This is one reason it can be hard to get people to participate, even when it seems that they should want to. Motivating people to get involved thus often requires convincing them that it’s in their self-interest to do so. Appealing to the abstract goal of “achieving justice” is rarely enough. Most people, no matter how virtuous they are, won’t dedicate themselves to the hard work of getting organized to make change happen unless there is something in it for them.
But doesn’t appealing to self-interest encourage selfishness? Doesn’t it encourage people to look out for themselves and avoid joining collective efforts to change things? Not necessarily, because many people’s self-interests overlap. Recall the examples of the abusive boss and the unresponsive city government. In those cases, change would serve the interests of many people, and organized action would satisfy those interests better than individual action. This is what good organizers help people see—that getting involved in collective action can benefit them more than remaining aloof and apart.
People can of course get involved in organizing efforts for selfish reasons. Perhaps there is some interest—for money, status, or power—they are trying to satisfy solely for their own benefit. Or perhaps they hope to satisfy some interest of theirs at the expense of other people. These are possibilities. But if ordinary people organize to resist domination, or to address an injustice from which they all suffer, they are likely to be on guard against one person or a small faction trying to tilt the effort to their advantage. I’ll say more later about how to guard against this problem.

The organizing process changes things.
 Ideally, organized action solves the problem that people aim to solve. Maybe the effort brings about passage of a new law, forces public officials to behave responsibly, changes the rules of a workplace, or gets a candidate elected to office. Whatever the outcome, success is apparent in having achieved the goal people set out to achieve. This kind of unequivocal success is what affirms people’s trust in organizing as a way to make the world a better place.
Many times, however, the results are equivocal. Maybe the original goal is only partly achieved, or not achieved at all. Some people will look at these outcomes as failures. “See,” they might say, “organizing doesn’t really work—it wasn’t worth the effort.” But a good organizing effort, even if it doesn’t achieve every goal, or seems like a failure, changes things. It changes relationships and people in ways that can matter later.
When people organize to resist being dominated or to challenge injustice, they learn that passive complaining is not their only option. They learn that their strength can be magnified by collective action, even if it turns out not to be enough strength to change everything they wanted to change. They learn how to work with others. In the process, they form friendships, invent new ideas, acquire skills, and gain confidence. These changes make people more ready and able to organize, more effectively, on later occasions. In these ways, organizing efforts today—whatever else their results—can foster change in the future.

Organizing doesn’t require charisma.
 Famous leaders of social movements—people like Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohandas Gandhi—are often said to have possessed “charisma,” a special gift for motivating and mobilizing followers. It seems clear that they did. But it is a mistake to think that organizing people requires a rare quality that is a gift from the gods. If we think this way, organizing for social change seems impossible without a charismatic leader to take charge. This is a paralyzing notion, one that can disempower people and impede change.
Organizing is in fact a skill, something that people can learn to do. It is what might be called a social technology. There are tools and techniques that have proven to be effective and can be learned. By mastering these tools and techniques, almost anyone can organize people to create change in the world. I don’t mean to suggest that it’s easy or that it doesn’t require practice. But it’s no less learnable than many other skills that ordinary people acquire in the course of their lives.
One more point: organizing is not the same as leading. Leading involves stirring emotions, articulating people’s thoughts and desires, and offering inspiring visions of the future. Leading might also require the courage to get out in front of followers and take risks. Organizing, in contrast, involves getting people together and helping them coordinate their efforts to accomplish the practical tasks on which achieving change depends. It’s true that sometimes leaders must organize and organizers must lead. But organizing is often distinct, occurring backstage, so to speak. If the work of organizing is done well, and the change effort succeeds, then perhaps in retrospect those who were in the spotlight on the front stage will be acclaimed as excellent leaders.
Sociologically Mindful Organizing
The best way to learn the skills of organizing is by working with experienced, successful organizers. Anyone wishing to become a good organizer should try to learn in this way. Most people, however, will not have a chance to apprentice with an experienced organizer before the need arises to organize. So there is a need for practical advice that anyone who wants to organize can use under most circumstances. That’s what I’ll offer here, drawing on sociological insights about why organizing efforts tend to fail or succeed.
The bits of advice that follow constitute what I am calling sociologically mindful organizing. This is not a special method but rather a way of paying attention to the organizing process that can keep it on track and keep it from falling apart. Successful organizers, in my experience, tend to be mindful of the matters identified below. To put it another way, successful organizers are often good applied sociologists, even if they don’t wear that label.

Attend to feelings.
 Most people don’t get involved in organizing efforts based solely on cost/benefit calculations. More likely, they are motivated by strong feelings—perhaps anger at unfairness, or fear of what might happen if a problem isn’t addressed. Good organizers channel these feelings into constructive action. Good organizers also know that keeping people engaged means attending to their needs to feel respected and valued. Precisely how this needs to be done depends on the circumstances and the people involved. In general, however, when people feel disrespected or unappreciated, they are unlikely to stick around and contribute to a collective effort, so feelings can’t be ignored. Feelings are part of what make us human, and no effort that ignores this part of our humanity is likely to succeed.

Listen.
 Active listening (see chapter 2) is one of an organizer’s most important skills. To bring people together, it’s essential to hear what they have to say. What problems do they have? What remedies do they seek? What kind of future do they want? Only by listening carefully to what people say about these matters is it possible to find the common ground on which people will work together for change. A good strategy, early in an organizing effort, is to ask people to tell stories about problems they’ve faced (or are currently facing). Stories are easier to tell and easier to absorb than “reports.” Storytelling can also build trust and solidarity. But no matter how people share their experiences—by telling stories or in some other ways—listening is crucial. Not feeling listened to is another reason that people withdraw from efforts to organize.

Attend to diversity.
 People who face the same problem and have a shared interest in solving it might be quite different in other ways. There can be differences in values and outlook and style, perhaps related to social class, gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, or age. A desire for harmony makes it tempting to ignore such differences. But if the differences are linked to unequal levels of privilege in society at large—for example, upper-middle-class white people generally being treated with more respect than working-class people of color—then they can’t be ignored because they can undermine trust and solidarity. Good organizers therefore attend to diversity and try to build bridges of understanding among people who are differently located in society. Good organizers also look for ways to turn diversity into strength, using it to enhance creativity and build power by combining the complementary abilities of group members.

Conduct strategic research.
 Organizing efforts sometimes fail because people’s complaints are dismissed as imaginary, or because the target of the effort is not the right person or agency. Strategic research is needed to avoid these problems. Gathering solid facts about the nature and extent of a problem is crucial. So is finding out who benefits from the status quo, who has the power (or official authority) to change it, who is likely to oppose change, and what the weaknesses of those opponents are. Knowledge of these matters is essential for devising effective strategies and tactics for pursuing change. Good organizers know that time spent doing research at the start of an organizing effort is not wasted. It increases the chances of success much like studying a map increases the chances of getting to one’s desired destination on time.

Strategize and plan

. To strategize is to formulate goals and identify broad types of action that can achieve those goals. Strategizing also takes into account resources, allies, opponents, and obstacles so as to develop an overview of the situation. Planning is more closely tied to action. It involves figuring out steps to take, who will take them, and when. Planning also includes thinking ahead about how to respond to opposition. It might seem obvious that any serious change effort needs to do these things. Yet oftentimes a desire to take immediate action will lead a group to forgo strategizing and planning. This can in turn lead a group to flounder after initial enthusiasm has waned. Strategizing and planning should not become ends in themselves; but without strategies and plans to guide action over the long haul, a change effort is likely to bog down. Good organizers thus devote time to strategizing and planning, knowing that strategies and plans can be revised as circumstances change.

Formulate process rules.
 Whenever people collaborate on complex projects, there is a need to determine how decisions will be made, who will be responsible for which tasks, how tasks will be assigned, who will be accountable to whom, who will speak for the group, and so on. Groups often operate poorly, or fall apart entirely, because these matters are not clearly resolved. To avoid confusion, conflict, and hurt feelings, process rules—rules about how the group is going to operate—need to be discussed and agreed on, the earlier the better. Such rules need not be elaborate, just adequate for the situation. Good organizers know that shared commitment to a set of democratically arrived at rules of procedure is the glue that holds groups together when the struggle for change puts people under stress.

Meet face to face.
 Electronic communication is great for sharing information and coordinating action. But it is not so great for attending to feelings, building trust, strategizing and planning, formulating rules of procedure, and making decisions democratically. These things are best done in person. To bridge differences, find common ground, and feel a sense of unity, people need to see and hear each other. This is how strong ties are formed—the ties that hold a group together during struggles to make change. Petition drives, letter-writing campaigns, and rallies can be organized through e-mail, texting, and social media. But these efforts are often ephemeral, evaporating quickly after some initial action is taken. Good organizers know that face-to-face meetings are better for building solidarity and securing commitment to a change effort.

Build coalitions.
 Part of strategizing is identifying allies—individuals, groups, and organizations that might join forces to support a change effort. Building a coalition means bringing these people, groups, and organizations together to share resources and coordinate action. “Resources” can include people, skills, money, knowledge, information, and contacts. What one group lacks, another might be able to provide. This is why good organizers look for new allies and ways to broaden a coalition. Just as bringing individuals together magnifies their power, bringing groups and organizations together magnifies this power even further. Although coalitions can thus bolster efforts to make change, they can also create new tensions. For this reason, it is important to formulate process rules (see above) about how members of a coalition will operate together.

Pick winnable battles.
 It’s impossible to know ahead of time which battles are winnable. Historically, some battles that at first seemed unwinnable—obtaining the vote for women, overthrowing apartheid, abolishing slavery—were eventually won. In principle, any battle is winnable if enough people are well organized and willing to fight for as long as it takes. But most people, even if they agree that a problem exists and change is needed, are reluctant to join efforts to “overthrow the system,” “abolish capitalism,” or “create a just society.” Such goals are too vague and grand. On the other hand, getting a new law enacted, electing a candidate, forming a union at work, or forcing government officials to fix a problem are more concrete goals that are potentially attainable within a reasonable period of time. It is thus easier to imagine winning these kinds of battles. Good organizers know that picking winnable battles with clear goals is important for recruiting people to a change effort and keeping them involved.

Be for something.
 Change efforts usually arise because an injustice needs to be rectified, or some form of abuse or exploitation needs to be ended. Anger about these problems and a desire to solve them can indeed be motivating. This is motivation that stems from people being against something. It is also good, however, to think about what a change effort is for, because this can speak to people’s desires to help make the world a better place. For example, a corporation that dumps toxic waste into a creek that runs through a poor neighborhood gives people in that neighborhood something to fight against. But members of the wider community might join the effort if it is clear what the effort is for: lawful behavior, effective regulation, responsive government, a healthier environment. These are goals that most people will support. Being for something in this way can thus help bring more allies on board.

Be self-reflective.
 In all organizing efforts, some things go right and some things go wrong. There are successes and failures, and it’s important to learn from both. Lessons can be drawn from carefully examining strategies, tactics, and procedures that work and those that don’t. Being self-reflective is a matter of making time for this kind of examination, ensuring that the discussion is open to all participants, and taking it seriously. Groups that do this tend to learn from their mistakes and become stronger over time; groups that don’t do it often fall apart. Constructive self-reflection isn’t a matter of celebrating or blaming individuals. It should be an honest assessment of how well people worked together and how to do better the next time.

Seek knowledge about organizing.
 It’s possible to learn about organizing through trial and error. Experience, when combined with self-reflection, is an excellent teacher. But this can be a slow and painful way to learn. A better way is to draw on the body of knowledge that already exists. This knowledge can be found in books, schools, workshops, and people (see To Learn More). Drawing on this accumulated knowledge can make organizing efforts more effective and less likely to go awry. Even professional organizers, when facing unfamiliar circumstances, often call on more experienced organizers for advice. Good organizers, in other words, know when they need help—and ask for it. People who want to become organizers or who need to organize, should tap the reservoirs of knowledge that have been created by others’ experience and reflection.
A final point to bear in mind is that it isn’t always necessary to organize from scratch. Sometimes it is, if a new problem has arisen and people have not yet come together to deal with it. But often there are groups already organized to try to solve a social problem. Joining such a group, presuming that it functions reasonably well, can be a way to help make a difference and learn more about organizing (by seeing what works and what doesn’t). Such efforts can also benefit greatly from the participation of people who know how to contribute in a sociologically mindful way.
Organizing as a Path to Mindfulness
People who read and write books tend to think that most things can be taught by writing books and learned by reading them. Of course, much can be taught and learned in this way. And it is a good thing, too, or else it would be much harder to transmit knowledge from one generation to the next. But book knowledge (or “college knowledge,” as I have also heard it called) doesn’t always take deep root. This is because it is often detached from concrete experience.
The problem of book knowledge not sticking is as true of sociological mindfulness as it is of other matters. Without practical action to which such knowledge can be tied, it tends to slip away. Organizing, it seems to me, is precisely the kind of action that puts sociological mindfulness to practical use and affirms its value. It is like the difference between learning botany from a textbook and putting that knowledge to use in a greenhouse or on a farm. It’s the latter experience that brings the lessons to life and makes them stick.
I don’t mean to suggest that organizing is an easy path to sociological mindfulness. Even with all the principles, advice, and wisdom in the world, organizing to oppose domination or injustice is a challenge. Resistance to change can be fierce. People seeking change can make bad mistakes. And even the best efforts don’t always succeed, fully or partially. Yet every attempt, every success, every failure can teach a lesson. This is part of how organizing, as I said earlier, changes things.
Organizing can indeed change the world. By getting together and deciding to resist being treated unfairly, people begin the process of change. By seeking common ground, overcoming differences, building mutual understanding, strategizing about what to do, recruiting allies, forming coalitions, and taking action, people become agents of history. When people are deeply involved in this kind of cooperative process, they gain new insight into how the social world works, becoming more sociologically mindful. What they also gain is new power to make the world a better place.