8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
1/37
A COMM-ORG Working Paper, revised November 1997
COMMUNITY ORGANIZING OR ORGANIZING COMMUNITY?
GENDER AND THE CRAFTS OF EMPOWERMENT
Susan Stall
Department of Sociology
Northeastern Illinois University
5500 N. St. Louis Ave.
Chicago, IL 60625
773-794-2997
Randy Stoecker
Department of Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work
University of Toledo
Toledo, OH 43606
419-530-4975
Co-Authors
This paper is adapted from presentations at the annual meetings of the Midwest Sociological
Society, and the American Sociological Association, and COMM-ORG: The On-Line Conference
on Community Organizing and Development.
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
2/37
ABSTRACT
This paper looks at two strains of urban community organizing, distinguished by philosophy
and often by gender, and influenced by the historical division of American society into public
and private spheres. We compare the well-known Alinsky model, which focuses on
communities organizing for power, and what we call the women-centered model, which
focuses on organizing relationships to build community. These models are rooted in somewhat
distinct traditions and vary along several dimensions, including conceptions of human nature
and conflict, power and politics, leadership, and the organizing process. We conclude by
examining the implications of each model in the current socioeconomic context and the
potential for their integration.
INTRODUCTION
Despite a rich and proud heritage of female organizers and movement leaders, the field of
community organization, in both its teaching models and its major exponents, has been a
male-dominated preserve, where, even though values are expressed in terms of participatory
democracy, much of the focus within the dominant practice methods has been nonsupportive
or antithetical to feminism. Strategies have largely been based on "macho-power" models,
manipulativeness, and zero- sum gamesmanship (Weil l986, 192).
The WOMAN in woman organizer is important....It stands for a growing awareness of different
tactics and techniques, and maybe even a growing awareness of unique goals (Education
Center for Community Organizing [ECCO] 1989, 15).
Behind every successful social movement is a community, or a network of communities. The
community behind the movement provides many things. It sustains the movement during the
hard times, when the movement itself is in abeyance (Taylor, 1989). It provides for the social
reproduction needs of movement participants, providing things as basic as childcare so parents
can participate in movement events (Stoecker, 1992). It provides a free space (Evans and
Boyte, 1986) where members can practice "prefigurative politics" (Breines, 1989), attempting
to create on a small scale the type of world they are struggling for.
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
3/37
These communities do not just happen. They must be organized. Someone has to build strong
enough relationships between people so they can support each other through long and
sometimes dangerous social change struggles. Or, if the community already exists, someone
has to help transform it to support political action. Sometimes that requires reorganizing the
community (Alinsky, 1971) by identifying individuals who can move the community to action.
This process of building a mobilizable community is called "community organizing." It involves
"the craft" of building an enduring network of people, who identify with common ideals, and
who can engage in social action on the basis of those ideals. In practice, it is much more than
micromobilization or framing strategy (Snow et al., 1986.). Community organizing can in fact
refer to the entire process of organizing relationships, identifying issues, mobilizing around
those issues, and maintaining an enduring organization. The distinction between community
organizing and social movement is that community organizing is localized, often "pre-political"
action, while social movements are multi-local. Consider, for a moment that we speak of the
Civil Rights "Movement," or even the "sit-in movement," but not the "Montgomery Bus
Boycott movement" (whose community was organized long before Rosa Parks refused to give
up her seat).
The distinction is subtle but important. One of the most common definitions of social
movement, by Charles Tilly (1984) says that a social movement is a "sustained series of actions
between power holders and persons successfully claiming to speak on behalf of a constituency
lacking formal representation, in the course of which those persons make publicly visible
demands for changes in the distribution of exercise of power, and back those with public
demonstrations of support." A general definition of community organizing, on the other hand,
says that "community organizing is the process of building power that includes people with aproblem in defining their community, defining the problems that they wish to address, the
solutions they wish to pursue, and the methods they will use to accomplish their solutions. The
organization will identify the people and structures that need to be part of these solutions,
and, by persuasion or confrontation, negotiate with them to accomplish the goals of the
community. In the process, organizations will build a democratically controlled community
institution - the organization - that can take on further problems and embody the will and
power of that community over time." (Beckwith, Stoecker, and McNeely, 1997) In general,
Community organizing is the work that occurs in local settings to empower individuals, build
relationships, and create action for social change (Bobo et al, 1991; Kahn, 1991, Beckwith and
Lopez, 1997).
Both of these definitions emphasize the action part of making change. Both talk about moving
people to put pressure on authorities to make that change. But in community organizing the
focus is on the community, while in social movements the focus is on the movement. These
are different levels of action. Community organization is the process that builds a constituency
that can go on to create a movement, and it occurs at a level between the micro-mobilization
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
4/37
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
5/37
male-dominated world of sports and the military provide images and metaphors for building
teamwork, and for igniting competition and antagonism against opponents "to win" a
particular movement campaign (Acker, l990). The rhythm and timing of social movement work
often does not take into account the rhythms of life of caring work outside of organizing
meetings and campaigns (Stoecker, 1992). Or when it does, the result is that women's
movement involvement is restricted. In the New York Tenants movement, women were
restricted to the most grass-roots organizing activities, while men did the negotiating (Lawson
and Barton, 1980). In the 1960s Freedom Summer campaign, organizers worried about the
consequences of white women recruits developing relationships with Black men in the South
(McAdam, 1986).
As a consequence, the community organizing work that women do in social movements is also
neglected. Payne (1989), Barnett (1993, 1995) and Robnett (l996) have challenged accounts of
the civil rights movement that neglect the central contributions of women activists. Barnett
(l993, 165) challenges research on modern social movement leadership that presents "the
erroneous image that `all of the women are white, all of the Blacks are men'" She argues
against the narrow definition of social movement leadership that elevates the movement
spokesperson, while neglecting the "leaders", often women, who serve as grassroots
organizers. Robnett (l996) analyzes how the "gendered organization" of the civil rights
movement defined the social location of African-American women in the movement, creating
a particular substructure of leadership.
It is possible that community organizing is neglected for the same reason that women's work in
social movements has been neglected. Women's work and community organizing are both, to
an extent, invisible labor. What people see is the flashy demonstration, not knowing the manyhours of preparation building relationships and providing for participants' basic needs that
made the demonstration possible. Indeed, community organizing is the part of social
movements that occurs closest to the grassroots and is in fact more often done by women
(Robnett, 1996; Lawson and Barton, 1980). Even when men, such as Saul Alinsky, do it, it
receives short shrift. And social movement analysis, with some exception (Taylor, 1989; Taylor
and Rupp, 1993; Taylor and Whittier, 1992; Robnett, 1996; Stoecker, 1992) has scarcely
developed concepts which would even allow us to see this grassroots labor, far less
understand it.
What are some of the gender dimensions that would help us understand community
organizing and its relationship to movement building? Our analysis begins with the historical
division of American culture into public and private whperes that split the "public work done
mostly by men in the formal economy and government from the "private" work done mostly
by women in the community and home (Tilly and Scott, 1978). These spheres have always
influenced each other (through routes such as the economic impact of women's unpaid
domestic labor or the impact of economic policy changes on family quality of life), but have
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
6/37
historically been organized around different logics with different cultures and, we argue, have
produced two distinct models of community organizing. These two community organizing
modeld--one developed by Saul Alinsky and the other developed by a wide variety or women--
in fact begin from opposite ends of the public-private split. The Alinsky model begins with
"community organizing"--the public sphere battles between the haves and have-nots. The
women-centered model begins with "organizing community"--building relationships and
empowering individuals through those relationships.
The Alinsky model, which we name after its most famous practitioner, is based in a conception
of separate public and private spheres. Community organizing was not a job for family types, a
position he reinforced by his own marital conflicts, by his demands on his trainees, and by his
own poverty. In fact, if anything, the main role of the private sphere was to support the
organizer's public sphere work. In his Rules for Radicals, Alinsky (1971) remarked:
The marriage record of organizers is with rare exception disastrous. Further, the tension, the
hours, the home situation, and the opportunities, do not argue for fidelity. Also, with rare
exception, I have not known really competent organizers who were concerned about celibacy.
Here and there are wives and husbands or those in love relationships who understand and are
committed to the work, and are real sources of strength to the organizer (p. 65).
His attitude toward which issues were important also illustrates his emphasis on the public
sphere. While problems began in the private sphere, it was important to move the community
to understand how those problems were connected to larger issues outside of the community.
Thus, problems could not be solved within the community but by the community being
represented better in the public sphere (Reitzes and Reitzes, 1987, pp.27-28). This is not to say
that Alinsky avoided a focus on private sphere issues. His first successful organizing attempt, in
Back of the Yards, produced a well-baby clinic, a credit union, and a hot lunch program (Finks,
1984, p. 21). But these programs were accomplished through public sphere strategizing, not
private relationships. In establishing and maintaining the hot lunch program, Alinsky pushed
the BYNC to understand its relationship to the national hot lunch program and "In order to
fight for their own Hot Lunch project they would have to fight for every Hot Lunch project in
every part of the United States." (Alinsky, 1969, p. 168).
The women-centered model, though it has a long history, has only recently received much
attention as some feminist researchers and organizers began arguing for a theory of organizing
that is feminist or "women-centered" (Ackelsberg l988; Barnett l995; ECCO 1989; Gutierrez
and Lewis 1992; Haywoode l991; Weil l986; West and Blumberg l990). For the women-
centered model, while organizing efforts are rooted in private sphere issues or relationships,
the organizing process problematizes the split between public and private, since its "activities
which do not fall smoothly into either category" (Tiano, l984, p. 21). Women's emotional
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
7/37
attachments to their families affect their everyday community commitments and their
priorities about what are appropriate targets for local social change efforts (Colfer and Colfer,
1978; Genovese, 1980; Stoneall, 1981). But women-centered organizing extends "the
boundaries of the household to include the neighborhood" and, as its efforts move ever
further out, ultimately "dissolve[s] the boundaries between public and private life, between
household and civil society" (Haywoode, l991, p. 175). Organizing to secure tenant rights, local
daycares, and youth programs "define a sphere which is public, yet closer to home"
(Haywoode, l991, p. 175) and demonstrates the importance of the interconnections between
the spheres (Ackelsberg, l988; Petchesky, l979). Women-centered organizing utilizes "feminist"
values, practices, and goals. Within this type of organizing there is an emphasis on community
building, collectivism, caring, mutual respect, and self-transformation (Barnett l995). As we will
discuss, women-centered organizing is defined as much by the historical placement of women
in the home and neighborhood as the Alinsky model is defined by the historical placement of
men in public governing and commerce.
In this paper, then, we address two neglected issues in one question: How do gender
structures and identities play out in community organizing? It would be nice if we could just
say that community organizing is the backstage women's work of movement building. But the
most famous of the community organizers, Saul Alinsky, was a man, and one who was
particularly fond of his masculine style of community organizing (see below).
This paper attempts to understand the not-quite-social-movement world of community
organizing. We draw on U.S. examples across five decades utilizing secondary sources and our
own community-based research to compare the Alinsky model and the women-centered
model--which we see as two of the most important strands of community organizing in theUnited States. Our purpose is not to systematically test theories or evaluate the models.
Rather, using a heuristic approach, we want to begin exploring the possible dimensions across
which these two organizing models can be compared. Some authors have examined and
critiqued the Alinsky style of organizing (Lancourt 1979; Sherrard and Murray 1965; Stein
1986), and a few authors have argued that there is a distinct way of women's organizing (ECCO
l989; Haywoode l991; Oppenheim l991; Weil l986), but no one has compared these two
approaches.
These "models" are ideal type constructs and, we suspect, do not occur as mutually exclusivein the real world. Indeed, many Alinsky organizations have been reluctant to engage in public
conflict (Lancourt l979; Bailey 1972), and Alinsky followers such as Fred Ross, Cesar Chavez,
and Ed Chambers increasingly emphasized private sphere issues and family and community
relationship building (Reitzes and Reitzes l987a; Industrial Areas Foundation l978). We also
focus on the more traditional Alinsky-style organizing rather than recent adaptations by groups
like the IAF. Likewise, the women-centered model has to-date not been portrayed as a model
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
8/37
and thus its practitioners, many of whom are trained in Alinsky-style organizing, are very
diverse. Instead, our purpose is to show two strains of influence on community organizing.
We first examine the historical roots and some basic traits of each tradition. Next, we explore
some key differences between the two approaches. We then discuss the implications of eachmodel and the potential for integrating them.
BACKGROUND OF THE ORGANIZING MODELS
The Alinsky Model
The very term "community organizing" is inextricably linked with the late Saul Alinsky, whose
community organizing career began in the late 1930s. As part of his field research job as a
graduate student in criminology at the University of Chicago he was to develop a juvenile
delinquency program in Chicago's "Back of the Yards," neighborhood downwind of the Chicago
Stockyards--a foul-smelling and crime-ridden slum of poor Poles, Lithuanians, and Slovaks.
When Alinsky arrived, the Congress of Industrial Organizations was organizing the stockyard
workers living there. Expanding the CIO model beyond workplace issues, Alinsky organized the
Back of the Yards Neighborhood Council (BYNC) from local neighborhood groups, ethnic clubs,
union locals, bowling leagues, and an American Legion Post. The success of BYNC in getting
expanded city services and political power started Alinsky off on a long career of organizing
poor urban communities around the country (Finks 1984; Reitzes and Reitzes 1987a).
Alinsky's targets shot at him, threw him in jail, and linked him to Communists, organized crime,
and other "undesirables." He saw how the "haves" blatantly took from the "have nots" and
unashamedly manipulated the consciousness of the "have a little, want mores." Alinsky had
little patience for the version of community organizing practiced by social workers, saying
"they organize to get rid of four-legged rats and stop there; we organize to get rid of four-
legged rats so we can get on to removing two-legged rats" (Alinsky 1971, 68).
Alinsky often argued that a career as a community organizer had to come before all else,
including family, and to enforce this he would keep his trainees up all hours of the night at
meetings and discussions (Reitzes and Reitzes, 1987, p. 10). Though he did not publicly
discourage women from engaging in the work (Alinsky, 1971), he was skeptical of women
doing his kind of community organizing, fearing they were too delicate (Finks, 1984).1 Heather
Booth, who went on to help found the Midwest Academy and Citizen Action, quit the
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
9/37
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
10/37
their public role...explain[ed] that they were only protecting their homes and families by
extending their activities from the home into the public arena. Women claimed the right to be
guardians of the neighborhood, just as they were acknowledged to be guardians of the
family"(Haywoode l991, l80). Since then, women have created numerous voluntary and
benevolent associations to campaign for concrete reforms in local neighborhoods and broader
reforms in municipal services, education, labor, housing, health care, and childrens' rights
(Berg 1978; Haywoode l991; Tax 1980).
Perhaps the most famous of these activities were the settlement houses, founded primarily by
college-educated white middle-class women who believed they should live in the
neighborhood wherethey worked (Bryan and Davis l990, 5). The most well-known settlement
house organizer was Jane Addams, who with Ellen Gates Starr founded Hull House on
Chicago's west side in 1889. Their goal was to improve the social networks, social services, and
community life in poverty-stricken immigrant slums. They succeeded in developing parks,
playgrounds, expanded community services, and neighborhood plans. They were also involved
in social reform movements promoting labor legislation for women and children, care of
delinquents, and women's suffrage. But community organizers often saw them as engaging in
charity work rather than adversarial social action (Brandwein l981, l987; Finks 1984, 96-7), and
clinical social workers saw them as violating the detached casework method that emphasized
individual treatment over social reform and community development (Drew l983; Lee l937;
Specht and Courtney l994).
The women-centered model also carries a history of success different from the Alinsky model.
The activism of women in the early settlement movement, the civil rights movement, and the
consciousness-raising groups of the radical branch of the 1970s women's movement allowedwomen to challenge both private and public arrangements in ways that would forever effect
their relationships, housework, parenting practices, and career paths. The consequent changes
in women's health care and women's knowledge of their own bodies, in cultural practices
around dating and relationships, and the relationship between work and family are still
reverberating through society. That these successes have not been better documented owes
to the fact that struggles focused on the private sphere have been neither defined nor valued
as important. Today, women of color, low-income, and working class women create and
sustain numerous protest efforts and organizations to alter living conditions or policies that
threaten their families and communities (Bookman and Morgen l988; Feldman and Stall, 1994;
Garland l988; Gilkes l988; Gutierrez and Lewis l992; Hamilton l991; Haywoode l991; Leavitt
1993; McCourt l977; Rabrenovic l995). These include, but are not limited to tenant organizing
(Lawson and Barton l990), low income housing (Breitbart and Pader l995; Feldman and Stall,
1994), welfare rights (Naples l991), and environmental issues (Pardo l990).
COMPARING THE MODELS
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
11/37
Human Nature and Conflict
The Alinsky model and the women-centered model begin from different starting points--the
rough and tumble world of aggressive public sphere confrontation; and the cooperative
nurturant world of private sphere personal and community development. Consequently, they
have very different views of what human nature is and its role in human conflict.
Among all the tenets of the Alinsky model, the assumption of self-interest has the strongest
continuing influence (Beckwith n.d.) and is strongly influenced by the centrality of the public
shpere in the Alinsky model.. Modern society, from Alinsky's perspective, is created out of
compromise between self-interested individuals operating in the public sphere. Thus,
organizing people requires appealing to their self-interest. People become involved because
they think there is something in it for themselves (Alinsky 1969, 94-98; 1971, 53-9). Alinsky's
emphasis on self-interest was connected to his wariness of ideology. From his perspective,
organizing people around abstract ideology leads to boredom at best and ideological disputes
at worst. Alinsky also feared ideology becoming dogma and was adamant that building a
pragmatic organization should come before promoting any ideology. He did hope that, as the
community became organized, the process would bring out "innate altruism" and "affective
commitment." But even that level of commitment was based on building victories through
conflict with targets (Lancourt 1979, 51; Reitzes and Reitzes 1987a, 56; 1987b). Alinsky relates
the story of one organizer's effort to start a "people's organization" and how he used self-
interest to achieve the desired result:
Mr. David was a businessman who...had avoided participation in any kind of social-betterment
program or community group....His whole manner let me know that in his opinion I was just
another `do-gooder' and as soon as I finished my song and dance he would give me a dollar or
two and wish me well. I suddenly shifted from my talk on the children and began to point out
indirectly the implications of his joining our organization....I could almost hear Mr. David
thinking..."And where could I get better business relations than at this meeting." Then David
turned to me and said "I'll be at that meeting tonight." Immediately after I left David I went
across the street to Roger, who is in the same business, and I talked to him the same way.
Roger had a doubled-barreled incentive for coming. First there was David's purpose and
secondly Roger wanted to make sure that David would not take away any part of his business
(Alinsky 1969, 95-97).
Since Alinsky saw society as a compromise between competing self-interested individuals,
conflict was inevitable, and a pluralist polity was the means by which compromise was
reached. Since poor people are at an initial disadvantage in that polity, the organizer's job is to
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
12/37
prepare citizens to engage in the level of public conflict necessary for them to be included in
the compromise process (Reitzes and Reitzes 1987a). Alinsky contended that the only way to
overcome the inertia that exists in most communities (Reitzes and Reitzes 1987a, 70) was to
"rub raw the resentments of the people in the community" (Alinsky 1971, 116). In order to
engage in the level of battle necessary to win, "the rank and file and the smaller leaders of the
organizations must be whipped up to a fighting pitch" (Alinsky 1969, 151). Alinsky would
engage small-scale conflicts within communities against unscrupulous merchants, realtors, and
even entrenched community organizations, to build victories and a sense of power (Reitzes
and Reitzes 1987a, 54, 65), treating even the relatively private sphere of the neighborhood as a
public sphere arena. Alinsky's involvement in 1960s Rochester with FIGHT, pressing for Kodak
to support an affirmative hiring and jobs program, is illustrative. FIGHT began with a drawn-out
negotiation process, and then Alinsky escalated to confrontational rhetoric and pickets. When
Kodak reneged on a signed agreement, Alinsky and FIGHT organized a proxy campaign for
Kodak's annual meeting. Forty members of FIGHT and Friends of FIGHT attended the meeting,
demanded that Kodak reinstate its original agreement by 2 pm, and then walked out to 800
supporters in the street. They came back at 2 pm and were told Kodak would not reverse its
position. The FIGHT leadership came out and told the crowd: "Racial War has been declared onblack communities by Kodak. If it's war they want, war they'll get." Threats of a major
demonstration in July and further escalation of the conflict produced a behind the scenes
agreement at the eleventh hour (Finks 1984, 213-221).
Unlike the Alinsky model, women-centered organizing involvement does not emanate from
self-interest but from an ethic of care maintained by relationships built on years of local
volunteer work in the expanded private sphere, particularly community associations (Stall,
1991). Rather than a morality of individual rights, women learn a morality of responsibility that
is connected to relationships and is based on the "universality of the need for compassion andcare" (Gilligan l977: 509). Women-centered organizers grasp the meaning of justice not as a
compromise between self-interested individuals, but as a practical reciprocity in the network
of relationships that make up the community (Ackelsberg l988; Haywoode 1991; Stall, 1991).
Leavitt (l993) describes how concern for their children's welfare led a group of African-
American women in Los Angeles in the late l980s to focus on rehabbing the existing tot lots in
their public housing development. In Nickerson Gardens, as in public housing across the
country, women make up the overwhelming majority of grassroots organizers. The campaign
of this all-women tot-lot committee ignited them to testify at housing authority hearings,
conduct a community survey, and eventually secure funds and participate in the design and
the construction of two play areas in their low-income community. They did not manipulate
self-interest but instead built a cooperative consensus.
Within the women-centered model, the maintenance and development of social cohesion--
personal connections with others that provide a safe environment for people to develop,
change and grow--is more immediately important than conflict to gain institutional power
(Kaplan l982). For women, community relationships include the social fabric created through
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
13/37
routine activities related to the private sphere, such as childcare, housekeeping, and shopping
(DeVault l991), as well as through social arrangements they make to protect, enhance, and
preserve the cultural experience of community members (Bernard l981, Stoneall l983).
Historically, women have relied on community networks to feed, clothe, and shelter their
families (Sacks 1988a, 21; also see Hill Collins l990). Particularly for women, communal
structures can serve as "free spaces" offering arenas outside of the family where women can
develop a "growing sense that they [have] the right to work -- first in behalf of others, then in
behalf of themselves" (Evans and Boyte l981, 61; l986).
Women residents of the Wentworth Gardens Chicago public housing development in Chicago,
in 1968, created and now continue to manage their own laundromat which provides both on-
site laundry facilities and a community space that serves as a primary recruitment ground for
community activists. The ongoing volunteer work of women residents over four decades has
assured the laundromat's continued success, and has helped numerous women developskills
and self-confidence to further develop the community through the opening of an on-site
grocery store and obtaining other improvements to their housing. A Resident Service
Committee, made up of laundromat volunteers, meets monthly to resolve problemsand
allocate laundromat profits to annual community festivals, scholarship funds, and other
activities.
Power and Politics
Both models have seemingly inconsistent understandings of power and politics. These
inconsistencies are rooted partly in the ways each thinks about human nature, but are also
particularly affected by how they deal with the public-private split. The Alinsky model sees
power as zero-sum, but the polity as pluralist. The women-centered model sees power as
infinitely expanding, but the polity as structurally biased. Understanding both the differences
between the models, and their seeming inconsistencies, requires looking at how each deals
with the public-private split.
For the Alinsky model, power and politics both occur in the public sphere. When power is zero-
sum, the only way to get more is to take it from someone else. Alinsky was adamant that real
power could not be given, but only taken. He watched how obsessed elites were with power,
even taking it from each other when they could and thus making the very structure of power
zero-sum. Thus, the method for a poor community to gain power was through public sphere
action--by picking a single elite target, isolating it from other elites, personalizing it, and
polarizing it (Alinsky 1971).2 The 1960s Woodlawn Organization (TWO) was one of Alinsky's
most famous organizing projects in an African American neighborhood on Chicago's south side.
When TWO was shut out of urban renewal planning for their neighborhood, they
commissioned their own plan, and threatened to occupy Lake Shore Drive during rush hour
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
14/37
unless their plan held sway. Not only did they get agreement on a number of their plan
proposals, they also controlled a new committee to approve all future plans for their
neighborhood, shifting control of urban planning from city hall to the neighborhood (Finks,
l984, 153; Reitzes and Reitzes, 1987)).
In women-centered organizing, power begins in the private sphere of relationships, and thus is
not conceptualized as zero-sum, but as limitless and collective. "Co-active power" is based on
human interdependence and the development of all within the group or the community
through collaboration (Follet l940; see also Hartsock l974). "[I]t belongs to a group and remains
in existence only so long as the group keeps together" (Arendt l969, 44). The goal of a women-
centered organizing process is empowerment (ECCO l989). Empowerment is a developmental
process that includes building skills through repetitive cycles of action and reflection which
evoke new skills and understandings, which in turn provoke new and more effective actions
(Keiffer l984). Empowerment includes the development of a more positive self-concept and
self-confidence; a more critical world view; and the cultivation of individual and collective skills
and resources for social and political action (Rappaport l986; Van Den Bergh and Cooper l986;
Weil l986). In the case of the Cedar Riverside Project Area Committee, an organization
dedicated to planning resident-controlled redevelopment of a counter-culture Minneapolis
neighborhood, tensions developed in the 1980s between those who emphasized building
power as an outcome and empowering residents as a process. One woman organizer
compares her approach to that of the lead organizer:
I disagree with Tim, but he's a very empowering person. Tim is more Alinsky. For me, the
process, not the outcome, is the most important.... The empowerment of individuals is why I
became involved.... I was a single mother looking for income, and was hired as a block workerfor the dispute resolution board, and gained a real sense of empowerment.
Power, for this organizer, is gained not through winning a public sphere battle, but by bringing
residents together to resolve disputes and build relationships within their own community.
When we shift the focus from more abstract notions of power to more concrete practices of
politics, both models are forced to work in the public sphere. But the public sphere-private
sphere split still influences how each relates to politics.
The Alinsky model sees itself as already in the public sphere, and as a consequence already
part of the political system. The problem was not gaining access--the rules of politics already
granted access. Rather, the problem was effectively organizing to make the most of that
access. Alinsky believed that poor people could form their own interest group and access the
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
15/37
polity just like any other interest group. They may have to make more of a fuss to be
recognized initially, but once recognized, their interests would be represented just like anyone
else's. Community organizing, for Alinsky, was bringing people together to practice democracy.
Consequently, Alinsky did not see a need for dramatic structural adjustments. The system was,
in fact, so good that it would protect and support the have-nots in organizing against those
elites who had been taking unfair advantage (Alinsky l969; Lancourt l979, 31-35; Reitzes and
Reitzes 1987, 17-18). Alinsky organizations support government even while attacking office
holders (Bailey 1972, 136). When the IAF-trained Ernesto Cortez returned to San Antonio to
help found Communities Organized for Public Service (COPS) in 1973, he began with the
traditional strategy of escalating from negotiations to protests to achieve better city services
for Latino communities. Soon after their initial successes, COPS turned to voter mobilization,
eventually resulting in a slim win to change San Antonio's council from at-large to district
representation. From there they were able to control half of the council's seats, bringing over
half of the city's federal Community Development Block Grant funds to COPS projects from
1974-1981. Eventually COPS found that its political lobbying and voter mobilization tactics
outpaced the effectiveness of confrontation and protest (Reitzes and Reitzes 1987a, 121-123).
Heather Booth's Citizen Action project has taken this pluralist organizing approach to its logicalextreme, focusing her energies entirely on voter mobilization in cities and states around the
country (Reitzes and Reitzes l987a, 153).
The women-centered model, however, approaches politics from an experience and
consciousness of the exclusionary qualities of the public-private sphere split, which becomes
embedded in a matrix of domination along structural axes of gender, race, and social class and
hides the signficance of women's work in local settings. This matrix has historically excluded
women from public sphere politics, and restricted them through the sexual division of labor to
social reproduction activities centered in the home (Cockburn l977; Kaplan l982, 545).Increasingly, women have politicized the private sphere as a means to combat exclusion from
the public agenda (Kaplan l982). Thus, women have organized around issues that flow from
their distinct histories, every day experiences, and perspectives (Ackelsberg 1988; Bookman
and Morgen l988; ECCO 1989; Haywoode l991; Stall, 1991; West and Blumberg l990; Wilson
l977). Women-centered organizing "dissolve[s] the boundaries between public and private life,
between household and civil society" and extends "the boundaries of the household to include
the neighborhood" (Haywoode l991, 175). Organizing to secure local daycares, youth
programs, tenant rights and a clean environment "define a sphere which is public, yet closer to
home" (Haywoode l991, 175) and demonstrates the importance of the interconnections
between the spheres (Ackelsberg l988; Petchesky l979). Cynthia Hamilton (l99l), a community
organizer in South Central Los Angeles, described a primarily women-directed organizing
campaign to stop the solid waste incinerator planned for their community in the late l980s.
These low income women, primarily African-American, with no prior political experience, were
motivated by the health threat to their homes and children. They built a loose, but effective
organization, the Concerned Citizens of South Central Los Angeles, and were gradually joined
by white, middle-class, and professional women from across the city. The activists began to
recognize their shared gender oppression as they confronted the sarcasm and contempt of
male political officials and industry representatives--who dismissed their human concerns as
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
16/37
"irrational, uninformed, and disruptive" (44)--and restrictions on their organizing created by
their family's needs. Eventually they forced incinerator industry representatives to
compromise and helped their families accept a new division of labor in the home to
accommodate activists' increased public political participation.3
Leadership Development
Leadership is another characteristic of these models that shows the influence of the public-
private split. The Alinsky model maintains and explicit between public sphere leaders, called
"organizers," and private sphere community leaders who occupy decision-making positions in
formal community organizations. For the women centered model, leadership begins in the
private sphere, but leadership becomes a form of boundary spanning across public and private
spheres.
For Alinsky, the organizer is a professional consultant from outside the community whose job
is to get people to adopt a delegitimizing frame (Ferree and Miller 1985; Gamson et al. 1982;)
that breaks the power structure's hold over them (Bailey 1972, 46-7). Advocates of the Alinsky
approach contend that organizing is a very complex task requiring professional-level training
and experience (Bailey 1972, 137; Reitzes and Reitzes 1987a, 53). In many cases organizers
must "disorganize" or reorganize the community since so many communities are organized for
apathy (Alinsky 1971, 116; Bailey 1972, 50). The Alinsky model also maintains a strict role
separation between outside organizers and the indigenous leaders that organizers are
responsible for locating and supporting (Lancourt 1979; Reitzes and Reitzes 1987b). New
leaders have to be developed, often outside of the community's institutionally-appointed
leadership structure. The focus is not on those individuals, however, but on building a strong
organization and getting material concessions from elites. Organizers have influence, but only
through their relationships with indigenous leaders (Lancourt 1979). It may appear curious that
Alinsky did not emphasize building indigenous organizers, especially since the lack of
indigenous organizing expertise often led to organizational decline after the pros left (Lancourt
1979).4 Tom Gaudette, an Alinsky-trained organizer who helped build the Organization for a
Better Austin (OBA) in Chicago, explicitly discouraged his organizers from living in the
neighborhood, arguing they had to be able to view the community dispassionately in order to
be effective at their job (Bailey 1972, 80). But when viewed through the lens of the public-
private split, it is clear that the organizers are leaders who remain in the public sphere, alwaysseparate from the expanded private sphere of community. Because the organizers remain in
the public sphere, they become the link that pulls private sphere leaders, and their
communities, in to public action.
There is less separation between organizers and leaders in the women-centered model, as
women-centered organizers, rather than being outsiders, are more often rooted in local
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
17/37
networks. they are closely linked to those with whom they work and organize and act as
mentors or facilitators of the empowerment process.5 Private sphere issues seem paramount
with these organizers. They find they need to deal with women's sense of powerlessness and
low self-esteem (Miller l986)--before they can effectively involve them in sustained organizing
efforts. Mentoring others as they learn the organizing process is premised on the belief that all
have the capacity to be leaders /organizers. Rather than focusing on or elevating individual
leaders, women-centered organizers seek to model and develop "group centered" leadership
(Payne l989) that "embraces the participation of many as opposed to creating competition
over the elevation of only a few" (ECCO l989, 16). Instead of moving people and directing
events, this is a conception of leadership as teaching (Payne l989).6 Analyses of women-
centered organizing and leadership development efforts also underline the importance of
"centerwomen," or "bridge leaders," who use existing local networks to develop social groups
and activities that create a sense of familial/community consciousness, connecting people with
similar concerns and heightening awareness of shared issues (Sacks l988b; Robnett, 1996).
These leaders can transform social networks into a political force, and demonstrate how the
particular skills that women learn in their families and communities (e.g., interpersonal skills,
planning and coordination, conflict mediation) can be translated into effective public sphereleadership. Robnett (l996) provides evidence that, "The activities of African-American women
in the civil rights movement provided the bridges necessary to cross boundaries between the
personal lives of potential constituents and adherents and the political life of civil rights
movement organizations" (1664). Thus, ironically, gender as a "construct of exclusion...helped
to develop a strong grassroots tier of leadershipwomen who served as "bridge leaders" who
were central to the "development of identity, collective consciousness, and solidarity within
the civil rights movement" (Robnett l996, 1667). Although bridge leaders were not exclusively
women, this "intermediate layer" of leadership was the only one available to women at that
time (Robnett l996). Mrs. Amey, now seventy years old, has been a key activist and a
centerperson in nearly all of the Wentworth Gardens organizing efforts discussed earlier since
the mid-l950s. A woman resident's description of Mrs. Hallie Amey provides some insight into
the importance of her leadership role:
She's [Mrs. Amey's] the type of person who can bring a lot of good ideas to the
community....And she's always there to help. And she's always here; she's always doing things.
And she's always pulling you, she's pushing you, and she's calling you, "We've got to do this!"
She makes sure you don't forget what you have to do. Early in the morning she's on the phone,
"Mrs. Harris, what time you coming out?'' That was to say, "you gonna do it without me having
to ask, or you giving me an excuse (Stall, interview, 1991)?
The Organizing Process
Finally, these two models adopt organizing processes that reflect the influence of, and their
conceptualization of, the public-private split. The Alinsky model emphasizes farge formal
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
18/37
public organizations to manage large visible public events. The women-centered model
emphasizes the development of informal small groups that take on less visible issues, in the
private sphere, in less visible ways.
Within the Alinsky model the organizing process centers on identifying and confronting publicissues to be addressed in the public sphere. Door knocking is the initial strategy for identifying
issues. Those issues then become the means of recruitment to the organizing effort. The
organization bills itself as the best, if not only, means of resolving those issues. The "mass
meeting" is the means for framing issues and celebrating gains. Important to the process of
building up to the mass meeting are cumulative victories--beginning with an easily winnable
issue, and using the energy generated by that win to build to bigger and bigger issues. The
public activities of the mass march, the public rally, the explicit confrontation, the celebrated
win, are all part of building a strong organization that can publicly represent the community's
interests. The annual public convention is the culmination of the Alinsky organizing process.
The first annual convention of the East Toledo Community Organization in 1979 was preceded
by flyers emphasizing the neglect of the east side of Toledo by city government, broken
promises from officials, the victories of initial organizing, and the unity developing in the
community. ETCO mailed packets across East Toledo that produced 500 registrants for the
meeting. At the meeting itself the 500-1000 people gathered passed 13 resolutions covering
dangerous rail crossings, park maintenance, utility complaints, service shortages, truck traffic,
and many other issues (Stoecker, 1995).
In the Alinsky model, the organizer isn't there just to win a few issues, but to build an enduring
organization that can continue to claim power and resources for the community--to represent
the community in a public sphere pluralist polity. The organizer shouldn't start from scratchbut from the community's pre-existing organizational base of churches, service organizations,
clubs, etc. In many cases, the community organizations created also spawn community-based
services such as credit unions, daycare, etc. This is not a process to be taken lightly or with few
resources. Alinsky often insisted that, before he would work with a community, they had to
raise $150,000 to cover three years of expenses (Lancourt 1979). When Ed Chambers took
over the Industrial Areas Foundation from Alinsky, he required $160,000 just to cover startup
costs for a serious organizing project (Industrial Areas Foundation 1978). For Alinsky, the
organization itself was part of the tactical repertoire of community organizing. Dave Beckwith,
an Alinsky-style organizer with the Center for Community Change, also argues for the
centrality of the organization.
If an organization doesn't grow, it will die...People naturally fade in and out of involvement as
their own life's rhythms dictate--people move, kids take on baseball for the spring, they get
involved with Lamaze classes, whatever. If there are not new people coming in, the shrinkage
can be fatal. New issues and continuous outreach are the only protection against this natural
process. (Beckwith n.d., 13)
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
19/37
The presence, and partial restriction, of women in the private sphere leads the women-
centered organizing model to emphasize a very different organizing process formed around
creating an ideal private-sphere-like setting rather than a large public sphere organization. The
process begins by creating a safe and nurturing space where women can identify and discuss
issues effecting the private sphere (Gutierrez, l990). This model uses the small group to
establish trust, and build "informality, respect, [and] tolerance of spontaneity" (Hamilton l991,
44). The civil rights organizer, Ella Baker, was dubious about the long-term value of mass
meetings, lobbying and demonstrations. Instead, she advocated organizing people in small
groups so that they could understand their potential power and how best to use it, which had
a powerful influence on the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (Britton l968; Payne
l989).7 Small groups create an atmosphere that affirms each participant's contribution,
provides the time for individuals to share, and makes it possible for participants to listen
carefully to each other (Stall, 1993). Gutierrez and Lewis (l992 126) affirm that, "The small
group provides the ideal environment for exploring the social and political aspects of
`personal' problems and for developing strategies for work toward social change". Moreover,smaller group settings create and sustain the relationship building and sense of significance
and solidarity so integral to community.8 Women in Organizing (WIO), a 1990s urban-based
project, organized twelve low income, African-American teenage mothers to gain self-
sufficiency and political empowerment. One of the organizing staff described the effort of this
"Young Moms Program":
Our work is about connecting women with each other, about transforming their experience in
terms of working with mixed groups of people of different races, about building the confidence
of individual women and building the strengths of groups....All of our work is really about
leadership development of women, of learning more of how consciousness develops, of how
we can collectively change the world.
While WIO did help these women to organize an advocacy meeting with public officials, the
meeting was preceded by nearly five months of training sessions that addressed less
traditional issues such as personal growth and advocacy in the family, as well as more
traditional organizing issues (Stall, 1993).
Because there is less focus on immediate public sphere action in the women-centered model,
a continuing organization is not as central in initial organizing. In place of the focus on
organization building are "modest struggles" ----"small, fragmented, and sometimes
contradictory efforts by people to change their lives" (Krauss l983, 54). These short-lived
collective actions (e.g., planting a community garden, opening a daycare, organizing a public
meeting) are often begun by loosely organized groups. The organizing efforts of the African-
American women in South Central Los Angeles, described earlier, functioned for a year and a
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
20/37
half without any formal leadership structure. Their model depended on a rotating chair,
stymying the media's hunger for a "spokesperson" (Hamilton, l991, p. 44; see also Ferguson,
l984). If empowerment is "a process aimed at consolidating, maintaining, or changing the
nature and distribution of power in a particular cultural context" (Bookman and Morgen l988,
4), modest struggles are a significant factor in this process. Engagement in modest resistance
allows women to immediately alter their community and gain a sense of control over their
lives. Attention to these struggles is necessary in order to understand the more elusive process
of resistance that takes place beneath the surface and outside of what have conventionally
been defined as community organizing, social protest, or social movements (Feldman and Stall,
1994). Women can achieve significant change in their neighborhoods by building on the
domestic sphere and its organization, rather than separating it from their public activities
(Clark l994).. Research on New York City co-op apartment tenants in the 1980s, found that the
tenant leaders were almost always women, the majority were African-American and were
long-time residents of their building and their community (Leavitt and Saegert l990; Clark
l994). These women organizers/leaders applied skills they had learned and used to sustain
their own families to the larger sphere of the building. They often met around kitchen tables
and they made building-wide decisions with the same ethic of personal care that they appliedto friends and family. Many of the tenant meetings included food made by different women
residents who equated sharing their dish with the recognition of their role. The style and
success of organizing was rooted in aspects of the social life within buildings and on a gender-
based response to home and community. They discusses rent payment and eviction issues in
terms of the situations of each tenant involved, and searched for alternatives that supported
residents' overall lives as well as ensured that good decisions were made for the building as a
whole (Clark l994:943).
CONCLUSION: SEPARATE MODELS, LINKED ISSUES
We see the differences in these two models as at least partly the result of the historical split of
family and community life into public and private spheres as U.S. industrial capitalism
destroyed Colonial-era community-based enterprise and forced men to work outside of the
home and away from the community (Tilly and Scott 1978). The competitive, aggressive,
distrustful, confrontational culture of the public sphere contrasts starkly with the nurturant,
connected, relationship-building and care-taking ideal of the private sphere. Clearly the
emphasis on conflict, opposition, separation, and winning in the Alinsky model reflects public
sphere culture. And just as clearly the emphasis on nurturance, connectedness, and
relationship-building in the women-centered model reflects private sphere culture (Cott l977).
The fact that for nearly four decades the Alinsky model was the preserve of male organizers,
and training in the Alinsky model was controlled by men for even longer, while the women-
centered model developed in settings closer to the domestic sphere often among groups of
women, reflects and has influenced the development of these differences (Stall, 1991; ECCO
1989).
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
21/37
In the disinvestment and deindustrialization that has come with global capitalism, each model
is as weak by itself as a nuclear family with a full-time male breadwinner and a full-time female
homemaker. As corporations either disinvested wholesale from their host communities or
downsized their local workforce, they forced women into wage-earning positions to make up
for male wage losses, leading to pressures on men to take on more private sphere tasks. In
poor communities that disinvestment left devastation--neighborhoods without businesses,
services, or safety. Indeed, many urban neighborhoods of the 1980s and 1990s were no longer
communities at all, but only collections of medium and high density housing with few
sustainable social relationships. In this kind of a setting, gender-segregated organizing models
can work no better than gender-segregated family members. Imagine trying to employ the
Alinsky model organizing young moms who are socially isolated and exhausted from the daily
grind of trying to make ends meet. The masculine confrontational style of the Alinsky model,
that must assume prior community bonds so it can move immediately into public sphere
action, may be disabling for certain grass-roots organizing efforts, "particularly in domains
where women are a necessary constituency" (Lawson and Barton l990, 49). The de-emphasis
on relationship building in the Alinsky model will mean that, where neighborhoods are less and
less communities, and the people in them are less and less empowered, the community canengage the battle but not sustain it. Large organizations may in fact inhibit empowerment
because they are not "likely to offer the kind of nurturing of individual growth that smaller
ones can provide, and may be especially off-putting to members of low-income communities,
where the predominant style of relating to individuals is still prebureaucratic" (Payne 1989,
894). Consequently, internal power struggles will threaten many Alinsky-style organizations in
these settings.
At the same time, the problems that poor communities face today cannot be solved at the
private sphere or local levels. The women-centered model, consequently, is also weak by itself.First is the risk that postponing public sphere confrontation with a white patriarchal capitalist
elite will maintain the vulnerability of at-risk communities, because white patriarchal
capitalists don't play fair. While women-centered organizers are concentrating on personal
empowerment--a process which cannot be rushed--the bulldozers could be coming. One
criticism of consciousness-raising in the women's movement is that it doesn't translate into
action very effectively (Cassell l989, 55; Ferree and Hess 1985, 64-67; Freeman, 1975). Indeed,
those risks appeared very pronounced in the Young Moms program described above. When
the program was threatened with a staff lay-off, organized resistance was difficult to mobilize.
But they also appeared in the Wentworth Gardens case where the maintaining a community-
run on-site grocery store became difficult as warehouses refused to deliver to what they saw
as a `dangerous' neighborhood. And they appeared in Cedar-Riverside as a community clinic
saw its funding cut and had to reduce services. Both communities had shifted away from
confrontational, Alinsky-style tactics to meet these issues and were consequently unable to
establish effective campaigns against these threats. The creation, nurturance, and
maintenance of community in the face of forces which threaten to destroy it--through neglect,
disinvestment, or disdain--is an act of resistance. It is a blow against the power structure just
to survive (Hill Collins l991; hooks l990). But the women-centered model may not work when
outside forces consciously attempt to destroy the community through any means available.
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
22/37
There is also a danger that this model may degenerate into a social service program, reducing
participants to clients. This tendency is what the settlement house movement, and the
subsequent "social work" version of community organizing, has been criticized for.9
Today, global capitalism also creates a new set of challenges for community organizing thatrequires drawing on both models. With footloose capital that can make broad-reaching
decisions, and can hop around at the slightest sign of resistance from a local community,
community organizing must build even stronger relationships and interpersonal ties at the
local level, and mobilize those communities for even more forceful public sphere actions. You
can't do an action at your local bank, because your local bank is owned by a corporation
hundreds of miles or more away. Organizing to counteract and control global corporations
requires at least national and probably international coalitions. At the same time, you must
organize locally or there will not be a strong enough base on which to build anything larger.
Building relationships that are rooted in strong local bases, that can then be linked together,
requires both models. Julian Rappaport (1981) describes the "paradox of empowerment" as
the need to organize simultaneously at the personal and structural levels. True communities
(with strong networks, culture, mutual support systems, etc.) under siege from identifiable
sources need to engage in confrontational campaigns to defend themselves, and will probably
benefit most from emphasizing the Alinsky model. Communities that really are not
communities--that lack the networks, culture, support systems and other qualities--require
first the foundation that the women-centered model can provide to prevent self-destructive
oligarchies. But in both cases the other model cannot be neglected. The tension created by the
Alinsky model challenges the strongest community bonds and requires compensating
strategies of relationship building and personal empowerment. And as much as a strong
community provides the foundation for a strong defense, when a threat presents itself, the
community has to be able to respond effectively. This integration of the two models also mustbe done very carefully. You can't just add together an Alinsky organizing process with a
women-centered leadership model, for example. Rather, integration needs to occur across
each principle so that the models are combined. Ella Baker's comments that "real organizing"
is working in small groups with people so that they can discover their competencies, and then
"parlaying those into larger groups" (Britton l968, 67) is an example of bringing together the
organizing process components of the Alinsky and women-centered models.
Careful attention to history also shows there are times when one model will be more viable
than the other. Robert Fisher (1984) showed a see-sawing between more militant and more
community-building periods of community organizing which seem to correspond to
progressive and reactionary periods in history. The transformation of Alinsky-style community
organizing efforts in the Reagan 1980s into community development efforts, and the
"discovery" of women-centered organizing during that same period, may also support the
contention that the two types of organizing may be more effective under different conditions.
Reactionary periods such as the 1980s force social movements into "abeyance" (Taylor 1989)
where the maintenance of community bonds and the provision of emotional support become
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
23/37
paramount, since public sphere action seems ineffectual. In these periods, the women-
centered model sustains the possibility for future public sphere action. Certainly, in the wake
of the deindustrialization and devastation of inner city communities there is a tremendous
need to rebuild communities of place. Mary Pardo (1990, 6) notes that "The issues traditionally
addressed by women--health, housing, sanitation, and the urban environment--have moved to
center stage as capitalist urbanization progresses." Community organizing today faces special
challenges, as the targets are no longer visible and local. As we move into the next century, if
women-centered organizing succeeds in rebuilding community bonds, aspects of the Alinsky
model may again become applicable. Some social workers are trying to resurrect the
professions community organizing roots (Specht and Courtney, 1994) and are calling for a
return to the empowerment model ala Piven and Cloward (1979). And the realization that
global economic processes continually threaten local communities may provide for a new
round of social movement activity.
NOTES
1Alinsky, along with Fred Ross, were instrumental in organizing "educationals" in California
that used a popular education process to support the organizing process. These educationals
produced the first woman organizer hired by Alinsky, and the first organizing effort targeting
women specifically (Finks, 1984:68-71).
2This is not to say that Alinsky avoided a focus on private sphere issues. His first successful
organizing attempt, in Back of the Yards, produced a well-baby clinic, a credit union, and a hot
lunch program (Finks 1984, 21). But these programs were accomplished through public sphere
strategizing, not private relationships. In establishing and maintaining the hot lunch program,
Alinsky pushed the organization to understand its relationship to the national hot lunch
program and "In order to fight for their own Hot Lunch project they would have to fight for
every Hot Lunch project in every part of the United States" (Alinsky 1969, 168).
3In Bullard's (1993) study of nine cases of grassroots community groups fighting proposed
toxic industrial sites, incinerators, or hazardous waste landfills, seven of these communities
were organized by women. These women improved "the environments of day to day life" by
utilizing family, ethnic, and community networks, creating a sense of community commitment
and connection (Wekerle l996, 141).
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
24/37
4Sometimes, indigenous organizers did develop. Fred Ross's work in the Southwest, for
example, produced an indigenous organizer by the name of Cesar Chavez (Reitzes and Reitzes
1987a).
5Fish (l986) distinguishes the Hull House mentoring model from the traditional mentor modelbased on an unequal distribution of power between an older gatekeeper or instructor and an
apprentice. The mentor model at Hull House, rather than a dyad, included a larger support
system characterized by a network of egalitarian relationships and shared visibility that
provided both public and private supports for the women involved.
6The Civil Rights leader, Ella Jo Baker, throughout her life modeled group-centered leadership,
stating that, "Strong people don't need strong leaders," (Cantarow and O'Malley l980, 53). At
one point Ms. Baker shared, "I have always thought what is needed is the development of
people who are interested not in being leaders as much as in developing leadership among
other people (Baker l973, 352).
7A quote from Payne (l989, 892-893) about Ella Baker's views shows the distinct position of
the women-centered model on how the organizing is done, versus the immediate, visible
outcome.
How many people show up for a rally may matter less than how much the people who
organize the rally learn from doing so. If the attempt to organize the rally taught themanything about the mechanics of organizing, if the mere act of trying caused them to grow in
self-confidence, if the organizers developed stronger bonds among themselves from striving
together, then the rally may have been a success even if no one showed up for it. As she said,
"You're organizing people to be self-sufficient rather than to be dependent upon the
charismatic leader.
8Tom Gaudette, in rebuilding the Alinsky-style Organization for a Better Austin, started by
creating small groups, but for the purpose of targeting issues and building a larger organization
(Bailey l972:66), rather than to empower individuals as the women-centered model does.
9To the extent that service provision can be organized through indigenous leaders, or
"centerwomen", and the goal of empowerment sustained, this tendency can be countered.
The Young Moms organizer explains, "I think social service programs for the African American
community are really extended families that you are now getting paid to be [part of]. So if you
look at it like that, it's really not about the numbers....It's about being there when the people
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
25/37
need you." Gilkes (l988) discusses how women social service workers who live and work in
Black communities are fashioning new organizational structures and practices and
transforming old ones--rebeling against the traditional human service practices (e.g.
impersonal, instrumental, bureaucratic) and restructuring their organizational settings to make
them "Black-oriented" (56).
REFERENCES
Ackelsberg, Martha. 1988. Communities, resistance, and women's activism: Some implications
for a democratic policy. In Women and the politics of empowerment, edited by Ann Bookman
and Sandra Morgen. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Acker, Joan. 1990. Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: A theory of gendered organizations. Gender &
Society. 4:139-158.
Alinsky, Saul. 1969. Reveille for radicals. New York: Vintage Books.
________. 1971. Rules for radicals. New York: Vintage Books.
Arendt, Hannah. 1969. On violence. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.
Bailey, Robert Jr. 1972. Radicals in urban politics: The Alinsky approach. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Baker, E. 1973. Developing community leadership. In black women in white America, edited by
Gerda Lerner. New York: Vintage.
Barnett, Bernice McNair. l993. Invisible southern Black women leaders in the civil rights
movement: The triple constraints of gender, race, and class. Gender & Society 7:162-182.
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
26/37
________, 1995. Black women's collectivist movement organizations: Their struggles duringthe
"doldrums." In Feminist organizations: Harvest of the new women's movement, edited by
Myra Marx Ferree and Patricia Yancey Martin. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Beckwith, Dave (n.d.). Introduction to organizing. University of Toledo Urban Affairs Center.
Beckwith, David with Cristina Lopez. l997. Community organizing: People power from the
grassroots. COMM-ORG: The On-Line Conference on Community Organizing and Development.
http://sasweb.utoledo.edu/comm-org/papers.htm
Berg, Barbara J. 1978. The remembered gate: Origins of American feminism: The women and
the city l800-1860. New York: Oxford University Press.
Berkowitz, Rabbi William, ed. 1975. Conversations with... New York: Block Publishers.
Bernard, Jessie. 1981. The female world. New York: Free Press.
Bobo, K., J. Kendall, and S. Max. l991. Organzing for social change: A manual for activists in thel990s. Cabin John, MD: Seven Locks Press.
Bookman, Ann and Sandra Morgen. l988. Women and the politics of empowerment.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Brandwein, Ruth A. 1987. Women and community organization. In The woman client, edited
by Dianne S. Burden and Naomi Gottlieb. New York: Tavistock Publications.
________. Toward the feminization of community and organizational practice. 1981. In
Community organization for the l980s, edited by A. Lauffer and E. Newman. Special Issue of
Social Development Issues ,5 (2-3):180-193.
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
27/37
Breines, Wini. l989. Community and organization in the new left, l962-1968. New Brunswick,
NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Breitbart, M.M. and E.J. Pader. l995. Establishing ground: representing gender and race in a
mixed housing development. Gender, Place and Culture, Vol. 2, No. 1: 5-20.
Britton, John. l968. Interview with Ella Baker: June 19, l968. Moorland-Springarn Collection,
Howard University, 4.
Bryan, Mary Lunn McCree and Allen F. Davis, eds. 1990. 100 years at Hull-House. Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Buechler, Steven M. l990. Women's movements in the United States: Woman suffrage, equal
rights, and beyond. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
________l993. Beyond resource mobilization? Emerging trends in social movement theory.
The Sociological Quarterly 34:217-236.
Bullard, Robert T. 1993. Confronting environmental racism: Voices from the grassroots.
Boston: South End Press.
Caldwell, Agnes. 1994. We are not afraid: The influence of social reproduction on women's
mobilization in Northeast Ireland. Paper presented at Annual Meetings of the Midwest
Sociological Society, St. Louis.
Cassell, Joan. 1989. A group called women: Sisterhood and symbolism in the feminist
movement. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Chodorow, Nancy. 1978. The reproduction of mothering. Berkeley: University of California
Press.
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
28/37
Cockburn, Cynthia. 1977. When women get involved in community action. In Women in the
community, edited by Marjorie Mayo. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Colfer, Carol J. and Michael L. Colfer. l978. Busher Bay: Lifeways in counterpoint. Rural
Sociology 43 (2):204-220.
Collins, Patricia Hill. l990. Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of
empowerment. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
COMM-ORG: The On-Line Conference on Community Organizing and Development. l997.
http://sasweb.utoledo.edu/docs/comm-org/cohome.htm.
Cott, Nancy F. 1977. The bonds of womanhood: `Woman's sphere' in New England. l780-1835.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Davis, Angela l981. Women, race and class. New York: Random House.
DeVault, Marjorie L. l991. Feeding the family: The social organization of caring as gender work.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Drew, Patricia. l983. A longer view: The Mary E. Richard legacy. Baltimore: School of Social
Work, University of Maryland.
DuBois, Ellen Carol. l978. Feminism and suffrage: The emergence of an independent women's
movement in America, 1848-1869. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Duster, Alfreda. l970. The autobiography of Ida B. Wells. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Education Center for Community Organizing (ECCO). l989. Women on the advance: Highlights
of a national conference on women and organizing. Stony Point, NY.
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
29/37
Evans, Sara M. and Harry C. Boyte. l986. Free spaces: The sources of democratic change in
America. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.
________. l981. Schools for action: Radical uses of social space. Democracy:55-65.
Ferguson, Kathy. l984. The feminist case against bureaucracy. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
Ferree, Myra Marx, and Beth B. Hess. 1985. Controversy and coalition: The new feminist
movement. Boston: G. K. Hall and Company.
Ferree, Myra Marx, and Frederick Miller. 1985. Mobilization and meaning: Toward an
integration of social psychological and resource perspectives on social movements.
Sociological Inquiry 55:38-61.
Finks, P. David. 1984. The radical vision of Saul Alinsky. New York: Paulist Press.
Fisher, Robert. 1984. Let the people decide: Neighborhood organizing in America. Boston:
Twayne.
Flexner, Eleanor. l975. Century of struggle: The women's rights movement in theUnited States.
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Follett, Mary Parker. l940. Dynamic administration. New York: Harper and Row.
Freeman, Jo. 1975. The politics of womens liberation. New York: David McKay.
Gamson, William A., Bruce Fireman, and Steven Rytina. 1982. Encounters with unjust
authority. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
30/37
Garland, Anne White. l988. Women activists: Challenging the abuse of power. New York: The
Feminist Press.
Genovese, Rosalie G. l980. A women's self-help network as a response to service needs in the
suburbs. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. 3 Supplement S248-S256.
Giddings, Paula. l984. Where and when I enter: The impact of Black women on race and sex in
America. New York: William Morrow and Company.
Gilkes, Cheryl Townsend. l988. Building in many places: Multiple commitments and ideologies
in black women's community work. In Women and the politics of empowerment, edited by
Ann Bookman and Sandra Morgen. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Gilligan, Carol. l977. In a different voice: Women's conceptions of self and morality. Harvard
Educational Review 47 (4):481-517.
Gutierrez, Lorraine M. l990. Working with women of color: An empowerment perspective.
Social Work 35:149-154.
Gutierrez, Lorraine M. and Edith A. Lewis. l992. A feminist perspective on organizing with
women of color. In Community organizing in a diverse society, edited by Felix G. Rivera and
John l. Erlich. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hamilton, Cynthia. 1991. Women, home, and community. Women of Power (Spring): 42-45.
Hartsock, Nancy. 1974. Political change: Two perspectives on power. Quest: A Feminist
Quarterly 1(1):10-25.
Haywoode, Terry L. l991. Working class feminism: Creating a politics of community,
connection, and concern. Ph.D. dissertation, The City University of New York, New York.
hooks, bell. l990. Yearning: race, gender, and cultural politics. Boston: South End Press.
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
31/37
Industrial Areas Foundation. l978. Organizing for family and congregation. Franklin Square, NY:
Industrial Areas Foundation.
Jonasdottir, Anna G. l988. On the concept of interest, women's interests, and the limitations of
interest theory. In The political interests of gender, edited by Kathleen B. Jones and Anna G.
Jonasdottir. London: Sage.
Kahn, Si. l991. Organizing: A guide for grassroots leaders. Silver Springs: MD: NASW Press.
Kaplan, Temma. 1982. Female consciousness and collective action: The case of Barcelona,
1910-1913. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 7(3):545-566.
Kieffer, Charles H. 1984. Citizen empowerment: A developmental perspective. In Studies in
empowerment: Steps toward understanding action, edited by Julian Rappaport, C. Swift, and
R. Hess. New York: Haworth.
Krauss, Celene. l983. The elusive process of citizen activism. Social Policy (Fall):50-55.
Lancourt, Joan I. l979. Confront or concede: The Alinsky citizen-action organizations. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
Lawson, Ronald and Stephen E. Barton. l990. In Women and social protest, edited by Guida
West and Rhoda Blumberg. New York: Oxford University Press.
Leavitt, Jacqueline. 1993. Women under fire: Public housing activism in Los Angeles. Frontiers
13(2):109-130.
Leavitt, Jacqueline and Susan Saegert. l990. From abandonment to hope: Community-
households in Harlem. New York: Columbia University Press.
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
32/37
Lee, Porter R. l937. Social work as case and function and other papers. NewYork: Columbia
University Press.
McAdam, Doug. l982. Political process and the development of Black insurgency. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
________. l986. Recruitment to high risk activism: The case of freedom summer. American
Journal of Sociology 92:64-90.
________. 1989. Gender differences as the causes and consequences of activism. Paper
presented at Annual Meetings, American Sociological Association.
McCourt, Kathleen. l977. Working class women and grassroots politics. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Miller, Jean Baker. 1986. Toward a new psychology of women. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Morris, Aldon. l984. The origins of the civil rights movement: Black communities organizing for
change. New York: Free Press.
Oppenheim, Lisa. l991. Women's ways of organizing. Labor Research Review 18:45-59.
Pardo, Mary.1990. Mexican American women grassroots community activists: "Mothers of
East Los Angeles." Frontiers 11 (1):1-7.
Payne, Charles. l989. Ella Baker and models of social change. Signs: Journal of Women inCulture and Society 14 (4):885-899.
Petchesky, Rosalind Pollack. l979. Dissolving the hyphen: A report on Marxist-feminist groups
1-5. In Capitalist patriarchy and the case for socialist feminism, edited by Zillah Eisenstein. New
York: Monthly Review Press.
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
33/37
Piven, Frances Fox, and Richard Cloward. 1979. Poor people's movements: Why they succeed,
how they fail. New York: Vintage.
Rabrenovic, Gordana. l995. Woman and collective action in urban neighborhoods. In Gender in
urban research, edited by Judith A. Garber and Robyne S. Turner. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.
Rappaport, Julian. 1981. In praise of a paradox: A social policy of empowerment over
prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology 9 (1):1-26.
_________. 1986. Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: Toward a theory for
community psychology. Paper presented at Annual Meetings, American Psychological
Association, Washington, DC.
Reitzes, Donald C. and Dietrich C. Reitzes. 1987a. The Alinsky legacy: Alive and kicking.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
_________. 1987b. Alinsky in the 1980s: Two contemporary community organiza tions. The
Sociological Quarterly 27:265-284.
Robnett, Belinda. l996. African-American women in the civil rights movement, l954-l965:
gender, leadership, and micromobilization. American Journal of Sociology.101 , NO. 6 (May):
1661-93.
Sacks, Karen Brodkin. l988a. Caring by the hour. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
________. l988b. Gender and grassroots leadership. In Women and the politics of
empowerment, edited by Ann Bookman and Sandra Morgen. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
Sherrard, Thomas D., and Richard C. Murray. 1965. The Church and neighborhood community
organization. Social Work 10:3-14.
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
34/37
Snow, David A., E. Burke Rochford, Jr., Steven K. Worden, and Robert D. Benford. l986. Frame
alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological
Review 51:464-481.
Specht, Harry and Mark E. Courtney. l994. Unfaithful angels: How social work has abandoned
its mission. New York: The Free Press.
Stein, Arlene. 1986. Between organization and movement: ACORN and the Alinsky model of
community organizing. Berkeley Journal of Sociology 31:93-115.
Stoneall, Linda. l981. Cognitive mapping: Gender differences in the perception of community.
Sociological Quarterly 51 (2):121-128.
________. 1983. Bringing women into community studies: A rural midwestern case study.
Journal of the Community Development Society 14 (1).
Tax, Meredith. l980. The rising of the women: Feminist solidarity and class conflicts, 1880-
1917. New York: Monthly Review Press.
Taylor, Verta. l989. Social movement continuity: The women's movement in abeyance.
American Sociological Review 54:761-775.
Taylor, Verta and Nancy Whittier. l992. Collective identity in social movement communities:
Lesbian feminist mobilization. In Frontiers in social movement theory, edited by Aldon D.
Morris and Carol McClurg Mueller. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Taylor, Verta and Leila Rupp. l993. Women's culture and lesbian feminist activism: A
reconsideration of cultural feminism. SIGNS: Journal of Women in Culture and Society. 19:32-
61.
Tiano, Susan. l984. The public-private dichotomy: Theoretical perspectives on women in
development. Social Science Journal 21 (4): 11-28.
8/8/2019 Community Organizing or Organizing Community (Stall Stoecker 1997)
35/37
Tilly, Charles. l984. Social movements and national politics. In Statemaking and social
movements: Essays in history and theory, edited by Charles Bright and Susan Har