Hey class,
Just read this article on Mashable and thought you would find it interesting. The author, Lance Ulanoff, attempts to answer this: “We’re all talking about Trayvon Martin now. But why did it take so long, and where was social media when Martin’s family needed it most?”
http://mashable.com/2012/03/24/social-media-and-trayvon-martin-care/
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:
In this chapter, Meyer details the pattern of political institutionalization of social movements that has come to characterize some movements in the United States. He uses the antinuclear movement of the 1970s, the longer term US populism and agricultural movements, and US labor movements as the exemplars for explaining the patterns and mechanisms of institutionalization.
Meyer provides an operational definition of institutionalization as “…the creation of a stable set of relationships and procedures such that the politics of an issue becomes routine, that is, repeatable for all concerned with minimal uncertainty or risk… The boundaries of possible reforms are reasonably clear to all concerned and are limited” (126). He then outlines several mechanisms of institutionalization:
What struck me the most about this chapter was the indirect, implicit discussion of legitimacy. To me it seems that at the foundation of this process of institutionalization is a search for the right place, a sense of permanence, the right people, and recognition for the need and the possibility for reform. What the process of institutionalization does for a social movement is accommodating the needs of the cause while providing them with a form of legitimacy. Following this train of thought, if this particular cause is being welcomed into the political system then it must have a legitimate claim to be taken seriously. In the title of this blog post, I ask in jest “Social Movements, Too Legit to Quit?”. But, I think this question has resonance with what Meyer discusses in this chapter because there seems to be a catch-22 with institutionalization. The process does not just fuel the activistism and/or activist participation. The social movement becomes institutionalized and gains legitimacy but gaining legitimacy may prompt activists to question what else they can do for their cause. Can institutionalization make a movement “too legit” and make the activists quit?
After reading this chapter, I’m left considering the following questions which I now pose to you:
Brittany Mangold