In our presentation last week, Brittney and I began discussing how the previous chapter had outlined Charles Houston’s philosophy of leadership – namely, the important relationship between active litigation in the courts and active involvement in the community.  In this chapter we find Houston leaving his post at the NAACP in 1938 after seeing his vision being realized and passing the torch to Thurgood Marshall; it is important to note that Houston’s involvement with the organization did not come to a screeching halt at this point (249).  To me, this embodies a rare leadership quality which I think is important – knowing when your time is up in a specific position without abandoning your commitment to your vision.

We also see how the structure of the NAACP began to undergo some changes as a discussion of how to properly incorporate the national branches was taken into consideration and slightly more emphasis was placed on field work – as evidenced by the importance of Ella Baker.  The discussion of the future of the NAACP during such an uneasy time – financial constraints as well as continued political constraints – had an emphasis on the localization of the struggle.  As we discussed when reading Barbara Ransby’s book on Ella Baker, Baker’s philosophy of leadership and social change was based in grass roots organizing and focusing on allowing communities to combat their struggles.  The analysis offered by Robin D.G. Kelley in “We Are Not What We Seem” speaks to the emphasis of localization.  In order to combat the politics of oppression it is important to consider the everyday, seemingly insignificant forms of resistance which may not have been groundbreaking protests but are in themselves politically important.

Two take away phrases from this set of readings are as they appear in the title of this post, “local” and “personal”.   I think it’s important for social movement organizations to consider the power that lies within local issues and personal struggles to ultimately bolster the overall vision for change.

Here are some questions I would like to offer for consideration:

• What do you make of Houston’s decision to depart from his
  position in the NAACP in 1938? Do you think it is important for leaders in
  social movement organizations to know when to “pass on the torch”?
• How do you interpret the description of Ella Baker’s early
  work in the NAACP in this book as it is contextualized within the examination
  of organization’s history? Do you find any similarities or differences from
  what we read in Barbara Ransby’s book?
• Considering the frame of Robin D.G. Kelley’s article,
  do you think that the personal can be political? If so, can you think of any
  other examples of such in other social movements we have or have not discussed
  in class?

What I enjoyed most about Robin D. G. Kelley’s article “‘We Are Not What We Seem:’ Rethinking Black Working Class Opposition in the Jim Crow South,” was that it brought an unexpected and refreshing new angle to the world of social movements. I was beginning to think of social movements as a game between institutions and organizations. Those in power would make their move, and then those who had organized to fight the power would make another move to influence the next move made. Kelley radically redefined that by showing me that while coalitions are undoubtedly important, they do not have to be made quite as consciously as I previously thought. They can form organically through friendships, community, and culture.

This approach I believe more effectively acknowledges the earlier constraints on social movement by African Americans. As Kelley points out, “when thinking about the Jim Crow South, we need always to keep in mind that African Americans, the working class in particular, did not experience a liberal democracy.” (110) This means that working with the institutions of power was not an option, at least not initially.

African Americans who did not have even the most remote access to power created their own power through civil disobedience and deviance. This was displayed particularly in the work place. Black men and women created a defiant culture by working together to control the pace of work in exploitive working conditions. Black women were subjected not only to racism by white male employers, but also to sexism, and supported each other through creating “networks of solidarity” (98). Public space also functioned as a forum for expression of frustration with race relations, especially public transportation. Individuals began to protest racism in the public transportation before it ever became an issue for social movement organizations like the NAACP. The people set the agenda for what to change, not the institutions.

While organization and structure are undoubtedly important to the progression of a social movement, I appreciated how this article put the power of social movements back into the hands of individuals. It recognized the importance why the movement started and not how it moved. Why the movement started undoubtedly frames how it plays out, and I appreciated Kelley’s emphasis on where the unrest unfolded and how resistance organically materialized from that.

Again, however, I think the most important takeaway from this article is that individual African Americans made their own power through civil disobedience in the workplace and in public spaces (although still within a strong community with communal purpose). The “unorganized, seemingly powerless black working people brought these issues to the forefront by their resistance, which was shaped by relations of domination as well as the many confrontations they witnessed on the stage of the moving theater” of public transportation (109). Without these rebellious individuals to create a culture of protest, even on a small scale, could organizations like the NAACP even begin? In the end, which is more important: the protest culture or the protesting coalition?