Abstract
The number of publications on the dynamics and the impact of social movements has increased exponentially over the past four decades. For nonprofit scholars, this literature illuminates the nature of citizen engagement and advocacy organizations. Kathleen Blee, whose previous books have focused on women on the far right, studied 69 activist groups in great detail and 1,200 “activist events” during the 2004 Presidential campaign. Blee’s focus on emergent, embryonic groups which may not even make the local news or be covered in community newspapers fills an important gap in our understanding of political organizations. She defines activist groups as those which “ . . . came together to pursue social change through non-electoral means” (p. 4). Many of the groups she studied were ephemeral but almost all were the kind of small, grassroots and community-based groups that are often viewed as the backbone of democracy.
The creation of new and often short-lived organizations is one of the most remarkable features of civil society in the United States. Some of these groups grow and survive; others go into abeyance, and their core members sometimes revitalize them with a new name and a different vision, while others are like shooting stars and have a short-lived existence with some or no impact. Newly formed organizations, especially the all-volunteer groups Blee studied, are subject to what Stinchcombe (1965) calls “the liability of newness” (Chambré & Fatt, 2002). Blee offers rich data and keen theoretical insights that contribute to our understanding of the organizational processes that explain the high mortality of some new organizations and by implication, the processes that promote the success and survival of others.
Blee identified groups in a variety of ways: through referral, notices in community newspapers and flyers; announcements in public spaces including coffee houses; and from other community organizations. The study was done in Pittsburgh, a city large enough to have a varied array of groups with different political perspectives, but small enough to study in its entirety. She and a team of students collected a massive amount of data. They attended a total of 378 events, most of them meetings, did archival and newspaper research, held focus groups, summarized all events during a month twice yearly, and reviewed 178 grant proposals. The average meeting attracted 12.7 people; some meetings only attracted the group’s leader and a researcher. Demonstrations were larger with an average of 138 people.
The book provides support for two propositions: First, that “Over time, activist groups operate in path trajectories with turning points”; second, “Small, even incidental actions can be important in the trajectories of activist groups, especially when they occur early.” Both propositions elaborate the concept of path dependency, a term that has been used to describe policy development, more than for organizations and groups.
Three major definitional challenges characterize the cultural development of these groups: Who is a member? What is the problem? and How do we treat one another? As all-volunteer organizations operating with limited funds—only one group had a part-time staff person—“members” were these groups’ major resource. But the right people need to be attracted; lacking formal systems of social control, it is important and necessary that members share similar views and operate in a collaborative and synchronized manner. Informal hierarchies and mechanisms evolve to welcome some newcomers and informally discourage others. Groups engaged in “collective theorizing” to move from the sometimes inchoate set of grievances that initially led to creating a new group to identifying specific circumstances and situations which promote collective action. As several groups often occupy the same institutional niche, each needs to differentiate its stance and strategy from similar groups.
Because shared grievances are often contentious, complex, emotional, and potentially divisive, groups not only promote open-ended discussion but also take steps to minimize disagreement and public conflict. Some ideas evoke a response while other contributions are beyond the boundaries of the group’s interests and are met with silence. Blee’s second proposition, that minor events have serious consequences for these fragile groups, explains why open disagreement or conflict is potentially destabilizing. One activist noted that “Every organization I’m working with is an inch away from disappearing off the face of the earth” (p. 126).
In contrast to the idea that grassroots groups like these are viewed by scholars and activists alike as foundational for democracy, Blee provides numerous examples of ways that “internally, many activist groups exhibit decidedly non-democratic interactions” (p. 121). Inequalities according to class, race, and gender are apparent and activist groups have a “trajectory of credibility” in which Credibility is a channel through which distinctions of status and hierarchy flow into the dynamics of activist groups . . . Indeed, in almost every meeting of virtually every group—even those adamantly dedicated to social equality—white individuals routinely talked more often and more authoritatively, were listened to more attentively, and had their ideas alter the direction of the discussion more often than was true of members of other racial groups. The situation was similar for men compared to women; middle-class persons compared to working- or lower-class-persons; and middle-aged or older members compared to younger ones. (p. 121)
Leadership styles are often undemocratic as well. While many groups claim a lack of a leadership elite “as if minimizing leadership will hold the group together” (p. 125), the avoidance of confrontation and discord sometimes allows leaders to impose decisions. One leader determined that a group should disband when the only other person to show up at a meeting was the researcher while another used a similar meeting to make a series of unilateral decisions which were accepted as group policy at later, better attended meetings. A third leader’s strategic decisions set the organization on a different course. Most members did not question this change and, according to Blee, “this focus had been adopted in group lore as a direction that ‘we’ decided to take” (p. 125).
Blee identifies an important paradox. First, activist groups promote democracy as they mobilize individuals and give them a magnified collective voice. At the same time, they can be inefficient and undemocratic. Recruiting and retaining members, deciding the direction and the importance of issues, and creating a space for deliberation and action are challenging and time consuming. The new groups spent much more time in meetings than the better-established groups: nearly 8 in 10 of new groups’ events were meetings compared with about half for the established groups.
Blee points out that Pittsburgh’s fledgling activist groups were also unfocused and their progress was halting at best. Often they failed to live up to their potential . . . Their political imaginations narrowed quickly, often leaving them unable to envision more than minor tinkering with social ills . . . Some of these problems arose because the groups were new . . . But others foreshadowed troubles that would likely deepen over time since emerging groups are more open, imaginative, and democratic than they are likely to be later. (p. 134)
Yet, these groups are not only schools for democracy, but vehicles for articulating new policies. Clearly, creating activist groups like these is effortful, imperfect and inefficient yet they are often the most effective mechanisms for promoting social change.