The next topic this blog will entertain is an approach to political
confrontation, the approach of “grass root” politics. The blog could just as easily use the terms
civic or political engagement, but however it is called, this blog views such
engagement in a positive light. As for a
main source of authoritative information, future postings will rely on a book
by Leslie R. Crutchfield, How
Change Happens: Why Some Social
Movements Succeed While Others Don’t.[1]
While
such behaviors – those associated with political engagement – on the part of typical
citizens does not equate to the acts of a political activist, it does mirror to
some meaningful level what Tocqueville describes (and was just cited in the previous
posting of this blog). That is a
citizenry involved in “a confused clamour [which was, in the 1830s,] … heard on
every side; and a thousand simultaneous voices demand[ing] the immediate
satisfaction of their social wants.”[2]
What
a federated citizen does, by definition, is keep up with what is going in terms
of government, understand his/her interests in that activity, understand how those
activities affect his/her community, region (the state), and the nation, and
determine, if necessary, how he/she will engage with those affected. This should be part of a citizen’s life and accommodated
into what else is happening in that life – work, parenting, church going, etc.
What
Crutchfield does is convey qualitative research findings – emanating from her
team of researchers – on what has been effective in terms of grass roots activities. She also indicates what has not been
effective. This blog will convey some of
those findings that are deemed as possibly useful to civics teachers that have
decided their instructional plans should encourage that type activity.
In
doing so, Crutchfield highlights some successful national engagement movements –
such as the anti-smoking effort – and some that to this date have not been
successful – for example, efforts to regulate fire-arms. She gives a good picture of what works and
what doesn’t.
As
what one would expect, the details can become of bit complex and even counterintuitive. But before getting into some of these factors
and narratives which make up these efforts, some overall information is
useful. And that information, provided
in the Forward of Crutchfield’s book, is, in the opinion of this writer, highly
agreeable with what this blog’s main goal is.
The
goal is to convince civics teachers to adopt federation theory in guiding their
curricular choices. So, whatever
advances the adoption of federation theory – parent support, curricular
officials’ decisions, school administrators’ policies, etc. – is welcomed and
that includes any findings that indicate federation theory is practical. Crutchfield provides that evidence.
Here, in part,
is what that Forward has to say:
[Crutchfield] shows us how networks
and coalitions are critical to success.
No single organization is big enough or wealthy enough to tackle huge
social and environmental problems alone.
Strategic partnerships and alliances across sectors are necessary for
change. This requires patience, skill,
and ego adjustment … Sometimes – or, rather, oftentimes – it takes incredible
optimism to fight these battles.[3]
Bill Novelli, the writer of these words,
goes on to share some more overall information.
He emphasizes
that many of the change efforts that captures the attention of the mass media –
the efforts the general populous knows about – really have to do with
transformative change. The efforts must
change emotional positions on the part of people. People, for example, had to change their
collective and individual feelings about smoking.
One factor, this writer believes, led
to changes in smoking policy was the effectively communicated message that
secondhand smoke affected innocent by-standers’ health. This triggered in many an emotional response. It related to the sense, “I am being unjustly
harmed.” But more is needed to be triggered
in peoples’ feelings than what one single warning shot offers to have the vast
response that eventually was evoked in that confrontation.
Another factor, as in the case of
smoking, attacking specific types of people, e.g., cigarette executives, is
effective. There are still anti-smoking
ads that depicts those executives as puppet characters mocking the health of
cigarette victims and their concerns over the detrimental effects of smoking. In one ad, the executives equate smokers with
test rats. That obviously is meant to
arouse emotions and, given their repetitive broadcast, probably are found to be
effective.
Further, Crutchfield brings up a
factor that is probably not even thought of by many who support what is usually
considered left-of-center movements.
That factor is the recruitment of large corporations that might find the
effort or movement worth supporting. Why
would they? Because what is being sought
might initiate a new market or a new product line. If not, it might augment what is otherwise a
struggling market or product.
As with the other above factors, some
investigating can first identify such links and, in addition, can be nurtured
and exploited. Large corporations can
bring significant resources – money, influence, expertise – that can prove to
be the difference in a given political confrontation.
And finally – in terms of this
introduction – rethinking leadership and follow-ship might assist a grass root
effort. Many participants, who are
considered followers, through a reconceptualization of roles, can be viewed as
leaders.
… [E]mphasis on leadership cannot be
overstated. Leaders make the difference
in social movements, as in most human endeavors. But [Crutchfield’s] finding – and our lesson
– is that good leaders exist throughout a movement. You don’t have to be the woman or man at the
top to be a leader. You can lead from the
front, the middle, or the back of the parade.[4]
Novelli shares Colin Powell’s point: many workers or participants in an
organization follow those who do not have leadership positions or authority. And commonly, these leaders provide needed
direction and count on their gravitas to solicit the willing compliance of
other participants. There are “leader-less”
organizations and “leader-led” organizations, but what is ideal is a “leaderful”
organization.
And by abiding by these factors, an
organization can have the energy to not only increase the probability for
success but remind all citizens that these efforts will always be a human
concern. Why? Because the forces of entropy (those corrupt
forces) are/will always be with a people – that’s one aspect of life that is
natural to the human condition.[5]
[1] Leslie R.
Crutchfield, How Change Happens: Why Some Social Movements Succeed While Others
Don’t (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., 2018).
[3] Bill
Novelli, “Forward,” In Leslie R.
Crutchfield, How Change Happens: Why Some Social Movements Succeed While
Others Don’t (Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2018), ix (Kindle edition).
[4] Leslie R. Crutchfield, How
Change Happens: Why Some Social
Movements Succeed While Others Don’t, xi (Kindle edition).
[5] Jonah Goldberg, Suicide
of the West: How the Rebirth of
Tribalism, Populism, Nationalism, and Identity Politics Is Destroying American
Democracy (New York, NY: Crown
Forum, 2018).
No comments:
Post a Comment