Today's readings were a little bit too real for me right now. We looked at Power in a Movement by Judith Stadtman Tucker, the same author I talked about in Market Logic Motherhood and founder of The Mother's Movement Online, and The Mother's Movement: The Challenges of Coalition Building in the Twenty-First Century by Patrice Diquinzio, Associate Provost at Washington College and former professor of feminist philosophy. These two articles detailed the way that social movements ought to be structured in order to be sustainable and effective.
As I read the articles on activism, I couldn't help but compare our movement with the ideals outlined in the texts. One of the first requirements that Tucker lays out is that we must think beyond ourselves. As a group comprised of a wide variety of different people organizing around an even wider array of issues (racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, ableism, religious intolerance, sizeism, etc.), I think we pretty adequately fit that description. The second requirement is balancing talk and action. In our initial forum on March 11th and our open letter published online on Tumblr and Facebook and circulated around campus in print, we "talked" a lot. Now we are trying to take the information we have presented and move toward "action" on our propositions for change. Next Wednesday, May 1st, 2013 we are organizing a Solidarity Rally in the Quad to bring these issues up in public and show just how many people are affected, personally or indirectly, by discrimination and hatred at St. Olaf College.
Tucker then talks about "building on-ramps to activism" as a means of sustaining a movement, stating that "multiple entry and exit points for first-time and seasoned activists" are essential to success. This is one area of our movement that I think is struggling somewhat. Although we would love to have more people engaged in the daily tasks of organizing, we haven't found an effective way of reaching out to new students and keeping them involved. After our original meeting with 150 attendees, 102 of whom signed up to be a part of the movement. But by the time we had finalized our open letter, only 20-some of us were regularly attending meetings. Many other students continued to check in with those of us who were regular attendees, explaining that school, work, meetings, and other commitments kept them from being actively involved - all of which are totally valid reasons. However, this analysis leaves me wondering how we can build as much flexibility (identified as essential by both Tucker and Diquinzio) as possible into our movement from here on out.
Similarly, I find myself wondering about how well we have executed the coalition-building discussed by Diquinzio. Though at the start we invited every single student organization and academic department to our presentation (I literally emailed every alias or contact person), we have proceeded largely on our own. This has not been out of any separatist motive, but simply a function of how we proceeded. As we wanted to keep the movement student-led, we did not pursue official recognition or faculty leadership. In so doing, we kept our autonomy, but limited our resources. As we move on in a more public way - the Solidarity Rally, supporting Carleton's similar efforts, meeting with administrators, etc - we can hopefully become a more interdependent, coalition-based movement.
Ultimately, I think our struggle to be the most effective, sustainable movement we can be comes down to the wise words of Maya Angelou:
Do the best you can until you know better.
Then when you know better, do better.
Enough! is doing the best that we can,
and as we know better we will do better.
and as we know better we will do better.
Yes, the group is doing good work. The May 1 Rally will be a necessary show of support for change. The attrition may not signal a need for flexibility as much as it suggest that goals must continue to engage participants. I'm fairly sure that those who can't attend regularly still support the primary goal of addressing oppression and creating a more inclusive environment. Consider Diquinzio's note that goals and approach must match. If one immediate goal is to draw the community out for the rally, for example, how is the group making the rally accessible and inviting for those unsure of what it will mean to go, to be seen at a rally? I know the group is thoughtful and savvy, so my apologies if this example is too obvious. I'm wondering if pre-event consciousness raising is an "on-ramp" for some participants. Maya Angelou's words are fitting. Keep up the good work.
ReplyDelete