Big Society: Rules for *New* Radicals

I have received a lot of emails and tweets since posting the blog yesterday on conflict and collaboration - thank you for all of these!

While many have been very supportive of a less adversarial approach to the future of communities, a few of them have tried to explain that government sponsored community organisers will be involved in both conflict and collaboration. The implication being that they are equally valid 'tools' for achieving results - perhaps being on the same path - as if they are on the same continuum.  A common strategy in this mindset might include a bit of conflict to start off with, and then when the object of pressure is paying attention, move to a change of tactic and a more collaborative tone of voice.  It's about applying pressures and tools to get someone to do what you want.  And if the wants are worthy enough then the means are justified.

My own experiences, and I have had several as I mentioned yesterday, have all involved some initial demonstration and protest to bring people to the talking table. These talks have generally led to long processes to reach some a level of mutual understanding and trust - ultimately resulting in better decisions because they contain more knowledge and insight gathered from multiple perspectives. So I understand this well and am sympathetic to some of this thinking.

In the conflict model you could probably generalise a little and say that on average it takes 2-6 months to get heard after a bad decision, mistake or an injustice ... 6 months - 1 year to re-build trust and negotiate a change .... and about 2-5 years to repair the relationships in the community - and there is *always* a lot of damage with the conflict model, win or lose - the smaller the community the more damage.  There are cases where there are black and white absolutes, but frequently at local level the reasons for conflict divide a community - polarising differences in opinion. Having been involved personally in all of these different sections of the cycle, including the painstaking repairs, you can't help but observe after a few times, what a completely insane waste of time, money and effort this all is.... to do this by mistake is one thing ... to re-create this pattern on purpose....when there really are mature and ethical alternatives?

Through this discussion I am not proposing a softer or more pleasant way of dealing with disputes.  What I am proposing is an entirely different model altogether. This alternative model demands that *everyone* transform the way they operate - working towards creating communities that avoid disputes altogether.  This can be done by developing strong *permanent* lines of communication and building *collaborative capacity* through deliberately and methodically developing widespread connection - strong and trusting relationships and a sense of partnership between local authorities and community members. This model is about building communities which sustain the people they serve on every level.  

We have an opportunity today to make these changes with the current space created by the Big Society agenda - but also an urgent imperative and responsibility to do so ... this is what social innovation is for. 

As Bill Clinton said, “[Interdependence] could be good, bad or both, and today it’s both. My simple premise is that the mission of the 21st century is to build up the positive and reduce the negative forces of interdependence.”

I am not proposing that people will always agree with one another.  On the contrary, disagreement is normal, inevitable and healthy - but it isn't the same as conflict and doesn't need to lead to conflict.

Neither am I proposing passivity or over-compromise. Quite the reverse, I am proposing active, imaginative and responsible participation.

We cannot move towards a different collaborative model until we let go of our charactatures of the heroic activists fighting against the evil intentions of the powerful.  Although these dynamics are sometimes true, very often they are not. And even where they are true perhaps we need to consider altering this dynamic purposefully, resisting the temptation to adopt stereotypical personas, and adopt instead pragmatic and honest approaches that recognise all the underlying motivations and needs of the people involved.

When 'standing up for ourselves' or 'standing up for others' slowly twists on it's axis to become a bending, bullying force in its own right, and yet receives no criticism or sanction, does this indicate that we should perhaps begin to self-examine if we have swallowed an inflated cultural narrative, of school playgrounds or epic cinema drama?  Or instead is it a symptom of the enormity of our fears of oppression and repression by our governing powers, and our lack of trust and confidence in democracy's ability to call these powers to account, that these double standards seems a small price to pay for freedom? Or is the democratic process just too lengthy or too much bother sometimes?

At local level what really is appropriate? Are we planning to support the interrelated and interdependent networks of families and businesses and schools that co-exist through friendships and partnerships that dream of living peaceably and socially together - drawing people into the positivity of community from the margins - making their lives better?  

Or somewhere along the line have we become confused about the difference between the power of 'disruptive innovation' to effect large scale change - such as the internet - and the effect of clumsily interfering in people's lives ... for the worse? The two largest conflict situations I was involved in locally literally snapped the social networks in half, sadly it even filtered down to the friendships of children - it hurt people, not for weeks but for months and years.

If we start to take seriously come very sounds ideas that building on community assets, rather than deficits, that  'community' itself might start to solve some intractable social problems, and we start to gather some proper evidence to this effect, then it becomes even more important that we ensure our actions bind rather than break communities.

I have particular problems with the current thinking about 'community organising' for the following reasons:

- Embedded in the thinking is the assumption that government is bad and that community organisation is needed to mobilise the community to *react* to these bad decisions.  This potentially leads to long-term negative cycles of: pressure ->defensiveness -> lack of listening and understanding->poor decisions -> pressure -> defensiveness ... and so on. We should be making long term strategies that change this dynamic completely - working to increase social justice and reduce mistakes systematically and collaboratively - not continue to feed cycles of reactivity.

- 'Ends justify the means' Alinsky tactics are tolerated as a legitimate approach. If not all Alinsky thinking is going to be promoted with community organisers there needs to be transparency and clarity about precisely what aspects of Alinsky thinking and strategies are supported and which aren't - His strategies are too controversial, manipulative and entirely out of step culturally and ethically to be vague.

The potential for the community organisers to help build flourishing communities is breathtaking. So much could be achieved through collaboration.

In continued support of collaboration, and frankly feeling rather radical myself at the moment, (in a sensible, 'harmony by design' sort of a way) below is a first draft of re-writting my own version of Saul Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals'. In one sense this is simply a different form of demo, a device to highlight some points I believe are important, rather than a serious attempt to create another set of 'rules'... we surely have more than enough of those.. and no theories here either - 10 years of trial and error repairing conflict damage are included in these ideas. 

BRITTON'S RULES FOR *NEW* RADICALS

RULE 1

Alinsky (Old/Conflict):  "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood. 

Britton (New/Collaborate): “Power involves creating spaces where ideas, energy and people are connected together from within all sections of the community and local government to create positive communities” This involves careful facilitation and creating safe spaces where everyone can share their opinions and contribute positively.  There is no enemy in a community.

RULE 2

Alinsky (Old/Conflict): "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. 

Britton (New/Collaborative): “Always reject ignorance in favour of building skills and knowledge.” There are many new ideas and methods that result in creative solutions that make people and communities stronger.

RULE 3

Alinsky (Old/Conflict): "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. 

Britton (New/Collaborative): “Whenever possible, instigate dialogue, so that everyone shares the same knowledge base to design solutions.” Look for ways to increase security, trust and responsibility.

RULE 4

Alinsky (Old/Conflict): "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. 

Britton (New/Collaborative): “Design systems which involve two-way accountability. Design a strict ethical framework for your own behaviours – stick to them.”  Demonstrate leadership by taking responsible for the effects of your own behaviours.

RULE 5

Alinsky (Old/Conflict): "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. 

Britton (New/Collaborative): “Respect is man’s most powerful collaborative tool.” Respect creates a climate for genuine dialogue and ensures that people have the opportunity to create shared understanding. It also works to ensure that everyone's needs are met, not just your own.

RULE 6

Alinsky (Old/Conflict): "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. 

Britton (New/Collaborative): “Connect people through the positive.” Trying to connect through the negative instantly excludes positive people with valuable ideas and solutions to contribute. Carefully develop a thoughtful long term Theory of Change strategy, where every action builds methodically towards a shared positive goal.

RULE 7

Alinsky (Old/Conflict): "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news. 

Britton (New/Collaborative): “Pay attention to and take responsibility for the overall side-effects of your initiatives.  Plan for developing long-term collaborative capacity through relationships that builds prosperity and wellbeing.

RULE 8

Alinsky (Old/Conflict): "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. 

Britton (New/Collaborative): “Develop a trusting culture which is constantly communicating. Having permanently strong and healthy lines of communication between stakeholders reduces the chance of mistakes and errors of judgment." This leads to better decision making and is a primary tool for avoiding misunderstanding, grievance and conflict. 

RULE 9

Alinsky (Old/Conflict): "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. 

Britton (New/Collaborative): “Develop methods which help people imaginatively co-design a positive vision of the future for the community.” Work to create a culture that promotes the importance of all members of the community, rather than creating heroes.

RULE 10

Alinsky (Old/Conflict): "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. 

Britton (New/Collaborative): “Don’t push, don’t threaten.  These behaviours break trust, trigger defenses and slows down and reduces the possibility of dialogue and making new positive things in the community.” Communication, harmony and positive initiatives are evidence of successful high-level facilitation. Aggression and violence are of signs of failure, and people should be made accountable for them.

RULE 11

Alinsky (Old/Conflict): "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem. 

Britton (New/Collaborative): “The wellbeing of individuals is rooted in social networks. Work to mediate differences, create harmony and meet everyones needs. However earnest, never let aggressive people interrupt positive work that bridges the community.” 

RULE 12

Alinsky (Old/Conflict): Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. 

Britton (New/Collorative): “Disagreement is inevitable and healthy, but never domonise individuals based on differences of opinion. Act with integrity.” There is no enemy in a community.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

UPDATE: Other people that have raised concerns about Alinsky-style organising.  A paper by Jayne Mills and Sue Robson here and a paper by Newcastle Council for Voluntary Service here. 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Below are some slides about Social Spaces view of Big Society, Competition and Collaboration from our trip to the Netherlands a couple of weeks ago.

Open publication

Comments

[TimJHughes]

Thanks for this and previous thought provoking posts Tessy. I've been reading Alinsky recently and have had some nagging concerns about his method - and more particularly how it's being appropriated - that I haven't quite been able to articulate to myself, but your posts have helped.

I think my concerns rest on the fact that Alinsky's tactics are - as he himself emphasises - focused on organising communities of interest, not communities of place. Therefore, to an extent I can see that conflict tactics could achieve positive outcomes, and even unite, a community of interest, but like you I am concerned by their affects on communities of place.

I'm unsure what the government's intentions are (maybe somebody will be able to tell me), but if the community organisers are to organise communities of place it seems they will inevitably struggle to juggle the many communities of interest that exist in an area. I can see a role for "organisers" to facilitate a collaborative process and develop dialogue between different groups, much as you outline above. But I struggle to see how an adversarial model could operate, particularly as they have no democratic mandate.

If on the other hand they will organise communities of interest, I'm uneasy about the concept of government sponsored community organisers that favour particular communities of interest and prompt conflict between them.

This is all a very roundabout (and most likely incoherent) way of saying that I like your thinking.

[Toby Blume]

Tessy
another typically thought provoking post on a subject i am (as you know) particularly interested in.
i will pick up some of the points you've made on my own blog (when i can find a few minutes to bash them out), but wanted to make a couple of immediate comments in response....

I see no reason why we should expect a model based in a very different time and space (Chicago....not Dr Who!) to be right for 21st century UK communities. However, i equally see no reason why we cannot develop our own model of community organising that takes account of the points you raise. I am committed to playing whatever role i can in doing that.

I also think it's difficult to adhere too closely to a particular model (of anything) to meet the complex and diverse challenges and needs different communities face. I would also favour collaboration over conflict wherever possible...but i do believe that sometimes it's hard to see how progress could be made without conflict. Would Apartheid in South Africa have been overturned without conflict? Even if collaboration also played an important part? i'm not sure.

I admire the way you have put forward new thinking and stimulating debate on a topic which has been too polarised between fairly dogmatic perspectives. Not all of Alinsky's ideas are bad and not all are good...similalrly not all of community organising is about Alinsky! We must have a more nuanced and sophisticated debate....and you've helped that to happen.

Toby
ps Tim - my take on what the government's intentions are here: http://bit.ly/gOddm1 & http://bit.ly/gOddm1

[Melanie Bryan]

Big Society - active, imaginative and responsible participation - love it!

Most of the new rules hit the mark for me - I have always had issues with a number of Alinsky's tactics. But I'd add another one along the theme of 'there is no enemy in community': 'it's our little imperfections that make us all the more charming - nobody's perfect.' - if we all remembered this perhaps we'd recognise that every strength has a corresponding weakness and vice versa - play to the positive everytime!