"When we create a space or build a field, what we end up doing is professionalizing and specializing a set of activities." This sang to me. Thank you for giving a name to the quiet-but-gross forces at play in these spaces as one can only do from the inside.
I do wonder if we professionalize and field-ify because it's the most familiar structure we (and that's a specific "we", a we with resources and big clout and power) have to reach for. It's like: recognize pattern/need/trend --> find people doing the work --> elevate + convene those people --> everyone buys into myth of specialness, further disassociating from the core thing they were addressing in the first place --> pyramid-scheme-type elevating others keeps happening to reinforce specialness, which in turn maybe meets interests of funders, media, or various commercial industrial complexes even if it's by accident.
The institutions who have the resources to convene on this scale *have to* serve other interests by doing so (because of funding or even just cultural clout) which makes it look like there are only a few ways to "be a thought leader" or convene others – big conferences, big cohorts, think tanks, papers, book deals, etc.
BUT the impulse to still seek patterns and inspiring people doing the work is still a beautiful one. And we shouldn't be turned off from this just because it gets so wonky (in every sense of the word) on the big scale. It might just be about the models we use to gather around these topics + people in a more scrappy, organic way. Like, conveners who bring people together once and disband. Or producing a one-off book or resource. Random interviews! Random intros! This is why your Civic Life x Joy event was so fantastic – you brought people together who you knew were doing cool as hell work and that energy was contagious to everyone else present.
CAN YOU TELL I HAVE A LOT TO SAY ABOUT THIS??? THANKS SAM!!!
There is so much humility in this. Thank you. Second, as a non academic I started doing some proximal work and get looked down on by academics and funders. I listen to people on public sidewalks...10,000 do it now too. Grass roots, self organized, and not for ego. This piece just gave massive motivation. We are doing a listening tour across the midwest for a week. Sweaty, sleeves rolled up, in a van. Wanna come? Hit me up...
@Connective Tissue and Sam, thank you for writing clearly what has been bugging me for many years. Even as I helped build the “field” and support “practitioners” who create paths and content for others to walk. Getting involved locally, hosting gatherings and doing the work is what lies ahead for all of us. Instead of continuing to lie to ourselves. I’m as guilty as anyone.
Sam, bravo and thank you! I appreciate all three points...and I kept thinking as I read that these gaps won't be closed without the establishment of real relationships (yes--within a proximity and undergirded by mutuality--between "insiders and outsiders," across socioeconomic status, elite and non-elite, and across all kinds of differences). This is off-the-cuff, but I wanted to shoot a note quickly...and I look forward to reading more!
Thank you for this. I am struggling a bit with your last point. I agree that "professionalizing and specializing a set of activities” is a problem because it inherently filters people out, but what do we do instead? As Elise suggested in her comment, it’s the structure we are familiar with to bring people together and attract more people to a cause. I also agree that “convenings” have felt way less impactful to society (and me) than the simple neighborhood ice cream socials put on by my HOA. Maybe the problems start when we say, “But it must be scalable!!” rather than focusing on the people right in front of us.
Love this! Couldn’t agree more. Those lies are real and limit our imagination and capacity to create real change. If you do want to turn this into more essays, I would recommend, if you haven’t already, that you take a look at Wolfgang Streecks new book on Taking Back Control, and David van Reybroucks Against Elections. They address lies 2 and 3. I come to this as a systemschanger who is trying to revolutionize history education (because it doesn’t work) and have been floored to find that most education innovators never talk to young people. And to see that the current conversation on civics and democracy—and education!— is entirely divorced from an understanding of the impact of hyperglobalization and neoliberalism since 1990. Lots of thoughts, but seems like you are swamped with outreach requests. Thanks for this and do please continue work in this vein.
This resonates a TON for me. Lots of overlap with the sorts of things I'm exploring at For the Love of Humanity (on the philanthropic facets of community work): https://www.fortheloveofhumanity.community/
THANK YOU! Looking forward to continuing the conversation....
Hi Sam- a touching articulation of your thoughts. How do we return to morality as Lasch calls out, when morality is today considered a weakness and ruthless self preservation is considered a virtue.
Looking forward to reading your thoughts as they unfold. The problem is just not in the US of A, this has already achieved "contagion" status and affecting all of humanity.
I've been committed to Axel Honneth's conception of solidarity since I was an undergraduate. The philosopher argues that solidarity arises from intersubjective recognition - when you see me for who I am and what I contribute to the community, no matter if that community is based around a place, issue, or hobby. It's about sharing the same value horizon...realizing we're working toward the same goal. So, you cannot create solidarity without actually seeing people, being around them, working with them. I agree with you.
Love where this seems to be headed--hope you'll keep going!
And I think the solidarity definition you offered--to bear each other's burdens--may be a formulation from Fr. Josef Tischner, the philosopher/chaplain of the Polish Solidarity movement in the 1980s. It's powerful, as you note!
Throwing ourselves under the bus like this, certainly makes any reader think twice about what we support and how we support it. It’s humbling to read this from the writers angle, to observe in admission of guilt requires only a wee bit of empathy. The subject matter is another story obviously, and truly a tragic one and in my little for a and into this world, it’s easy to see the same mistakes being made. We must move into and live with the people and Social change, we want to see. As always, thank you for this platform.
I agree with your discussion of Lies 1 and 3, but I fear that Lie 2 may fall into a common trap that modern movements face, which is a form of mission creep. Putnam's Bowling Alone is what got me interested in community building in the first place. One of the reasons it resonated so strongly with me was that its goals seemed so egalitarian and do-able. Just go join. Just do it. There are so many reasons to join, so do it. Joining can make everything better.
Lie 2 takes that simple, eminently do-able message, and puts it in the context of of most of the ills of modern society and claims that we have to fix most of those ills before we can have any meaningful civic renewal. I fear this type of thinking could have two negative effects on the movement as a whole. First, there is the issue of individual motivation. By saying that we have to fix a lot of broad structure problems in order to achieve our goals, you might run into the issue of people giving up on the whole enterprise because the goal, which was originally modest, now seems so unachievable. This is the problem that I often see climate change crusaders running into. Their message is, very broadly speaking, that we need very fundamental changes to how we live our lives in order to combat climate change. That doesn't seem like something one person can do much to help with. That type of thinking leads to cynicism and inactivity and doomscrolling. It doesn't motivate people to get out and do things (because what's the point? The problem’s too big to solve).
Second, there's the issue of political partisanship. Lie 2 gets into a whole host of political issues for which there can be reasonable disagreements. Just off the top of my head, I think the issues identified in Lie 2 require discussions of the role of unions in society, the role of the tax system to redistribute income, housing policy, zoning, public transit, public spaces and a whole of of other issues for which there can be reasonable disagreements. I think that if we make Lie 2 a precondition or fundamental condition to the work of civic rebuilding we will run into the problem of it becoming labelled “just another Progressive pet project”. Such labelling, which I think would be justified if we made Lie 2 a key part of the program, runs counter to building inclusive institutions because it makes the whole exercise of institution building stand in opposition to people who might be more right-wing in their thinking. For example, if we make supporting unions a fundamental principle of building civic organizations, then we are going to exclude everyone who thinks unions aren’t such a great idea (unions are not perfect, after all). I make this example because that’s what I interpret Sam’s statement “If workers do not have stable and predictable work” to mean. I do that because that’s language typically used in support of organized labour.
I think that Lie 2 runs into the problem of zooming out too far and trying to undo the tangled skein of modern society in order to fix one problem. I think it’s far better for us to grab hold of one thread and pull like the Dickens. I think we need to view civic engagement as the one keystone around which solutions to the rest of the problems can be built. My approach may not be perfect, but I think it’s our best shot at keeping the goals do-able and egalitarian. We won't solve every problem, but we will still probably be better off than when we started.
I don’t know that addressing #2 requires as much mission creep as you fear. To build on your affection for Putnam, it may be as simple as asking, after joining an organization, what kinds of practices would make it more accessible for others, especially those with work commitments or affordability issues, whether that’s offering volunteer childcare or additional/different meeting times. Or as I’m finding in trying to cultivate more and better weak ties in my own community, shopping local and being conscious of which local businesses offer living wages when I do get choices about where to buy.
When we seek participation, asking questions like “are we really being inclusive across the income spectrum within our community” and “what issues would make the biggest difference to prioritize if we wanted to sustain robust civic participation” are entirely reasonable. Baby steps on both democratic health and economic renewal can go hand in hand, rather than making the one a nonnegotiable prerequisite for the other.
Great stuff... Thank you. ... I appreciate the "solution approaches" that others are presenting. I want to point to one myself, which addresses all three lies we tell ourselves. See the Wise Democracy Project at https://www.wisedemocracy.org/2-solving-national-issues.html
LET'S GOOOOOO!!!!
"When we create a space or build a field, what we end up doing is professionalizing and specializing a set of activities." This sang to me. Thank you for giving a name to the quiet-but-gross forces at play in these spaces as one can only do from the inside.
I do wonder if we professionalize and field-ify because it's the most familiar structure we (and that's a specific "we", a we with resources and big clout and power) have to reach for. It's like: recognize pattern/need/trend --> find people doing the work --> elevate + convene those people --> everyone buys into myth of specialness, further disassociating from the core thing they were addressing in the first place --> pyramid-scheme-type elevating others keeps happening to reinforce specialness, which in turn maybe meets interests of funders, media, or various commercial industrial complexes even if it's by accident.
The institutions who have the resources to convene on this scale *have to* serve other interests by doing so (because of funding or even just cultural clout) which makes it look like there are only a few ways to "be a thought leader" or convene others – big conferences, big cohorts, think tanks, papers, book deals, etc.
BUT the impulse to still seek patterns and inspiring people doing the work is still a beautiful one. And we shouldn't be turned off from this just because it gets so wonky (in every sense of the word) on the big scale. It might just be about the models we use to gather around these topics + people in a more scrappy, organic way. Like, conveners who bring people together once and disband. Or producing a one-off book or resource. Random interviews! Random intros! This is why your Civic Life x Joy event was so fantastic – you brought people together who you knew were doing cool as hell work and that energy was contagious to everyone else present.
CAN YOU TELL I HAVE A LOT TO SAY ABOUT THIS??? THANKS SAM!!!
Thank you for putting words to the unease I've been sorting through myself in this work. Bravo for the bravery to say it out loud!
There is so much humility in this. Thank you. Second, as a non academic I started doing some proximal work and get looked down on by academics and funders. I listen to people on public sidewalks...10,000 do it now too. Grass roots, self organized, and not for ego. This piece just gave massive motivation. We are doing a listening tour across the midwest for a week. Sweaty, sleeves rolled up, in a van. Wanna come? Hit me up...
@Connective Tissue and Sam, thank you for writing clearly what has been bugging me for many years. Even as I helped build the “field” and support “practitioners” who create paths and content for others to walk. Getting involved locally, hosting gatherings and doing the work is what lies ahead for all of us. Instead of continuing to lie to ourselves. I’m as guilty as anyone.
Sam, bravo and thank you! I appreciate all three points...and I kept thinking as I read that these gaps won't be closed without the establishment of real relationships (yes--within a proximity and undergirded by mutuality--between "insiders and outsiders," across socioeconomic status, elite and non-elite, and across all kinds of differences). This is off-the-cuff, but I wanted to shoot a note quickly...and I look forward to reading more!
Thank you for this. I am struggling a bit with your last point. I agree that "professionalizing and specializing a set of activities” is a problem because it inherently filters people out, but what do we do instead? As Elise suggested in her comment, it’s the structure we are familiar with to bring people together and attract more people to a cause. I also agree that “convenings” have felt way less impactful to society (and me) than the simple neighborhood ice cream socials put on by my HOA. Maybe the problems start when we say, “But it must be scalable!!” rather than focusing on the people right in front of us.
Love this! Couldn’t agree more. Those lies are real and limit our imagination and capacity to create real change. If you do want to turn this into more essays, I would recommend, if you haven’t already, that you take a look at Wolfgang Streecks new book on Taking Back Control, and David van Reybroucks Against Elections. They address lies 2 and 3. I come to this as a systemschanger who is trying to revolutionize history education (because it doesn’t work) and have been floored to find that most education innovators never talk to young people. And to see that the current conversation on civics and democracy—and education!— is entirely divorced from an understanding of the impact of hyperglobalization and neoliberalism since 1990. Lots of thoughts, but seems like you are swamped with outreach requests. Thanks for this and do please continue work in this vein.
This resonates a TON for me. Lots of overlap with the sorts of things I'm exploring at For the Love of Humanity (on the philanthropic facets of community work): https://www.fortheloveofhumanity.community/
THANK YOU! Looking forward to continuing the conversation....
Glad I was served this content on LinkedIn. Fantastic distillation of the disconnects between theory, practice, and implementation.
Hi Sam- a touching articulation of your thoughts. How do we return to morality as Lasch calls out, when morality is today considered a weakness and ruthless self preservation is considered a virtue.
Looking forward to reading your thoughts as they unfold. The problem is just not in the US of A, this has already achieved "contagion" status and affecting all of humanity.
I've been committed to Axel Honneth's conception of solidarity since I was an undergraduate. The philosopher argues that solidarity arises from intersubjective recognition - when you see me for who I am and what I contribute to the community, no matter if that community is based around a place, issue, or hobby. It's about sharing the same value horizon...realizing we're working toward the same goal. So, you cannot create solidarity without actually seeing people, being around them, working with them. I agree with you.
Love where this seems to be headed--hope you'll keep going!
And I think the solidarity definition you offered--to bear each other's burdens--may be a formulation from Fr. Josef Tischner, the philosopher/chaplain of the Polish Solidarity movement in the 1980s. It's powerful, as you note!
Throwing ourselves under the bus like this, certainly makes any reader think twice about what we support and how we support it. It’s humbling to read this from the writers angle, to observe in admission of guilt requires only a wee bit of empathy. The subject matter is another story obviously, and truly a tragic one and in my little for a and into this world, it’s easy to see the same mistakes being made. We must move into and live with the people and Social change, we want to see. As always, thank you for this platform.
Greg
Citizen Pressler coming in HOT AND HEAVY!! Let’s go!!
I agree with your discussion of Lies 1 and 3, but I fear that Lie 2 may fall into a common trap that modern movements face, which is a form of mission creep. Putnam's Bowling Alone is what got me interested in community building in the first place. One of the reasons it resonated so strongly with me was that its goals seemed so egalitarian and do-able. Just go join. Just do it. There are so many reasons to join, so do it. Joining can make everything better.
Lie 2 takes that simple, eminently do-able message, and puts it in the context of of most of the ills of modern society and claims that we have to fix most of those ills before we can have any meaningful civic renewal. I fear this type of thinking could have two negative effects on the movement as a whole. First, there is the issue of individual motivation. By saying that we have to fix a lot of broad structure problems in order to achieve our goals, you might run into the issue of people giving up on the whole enterprise because the goal, which was originally modest, now seems so unachievable. This is the problem that I often see climate change crusaders running into. Their message is, very broadly speaking, that we need very fundamental changes to how we live our lives in order to combat climate change. That doesn't seem like something one person can do much to help with. That type of thinking leads to cynicism and inactivity and doomscrolling. It doesn't motivate people to get out and do things (because what's the point? The problem’s too big to solve).
Second, there's the issue of political partisanship. Lie 2 gets into a whole host of political issues for which there can be reasonable disagreements. Just off the top of my head, I think the issues identified in Lie 2 require discussions of the role of unions in society, the role of the tax system to redistribute income, housing policy, zoning, public transit, public spaces and a whole of of other issues for which there can be reasonable disagreements. I think that if we make Lie 2 a precondition or fundamental condition to the work of civic rebuilding we will run into the problem of it becoming labelled “just another Progressive pet project”. Such labelling, which I think would be justified if we made Lie 2 a key part of the program, runs counter to building inclusive institutions because it makes the whole exercise of institution building stand in opposition to people who might be more right-wing in their thinking. For example, if we make supporting unions a fundamental principle of building civic organizations, then we are going to exclude everyone who thinks unions aren’t such a great idea (unions are not perfect, after all). I make this example because that’s what I interpret Sam’s statement “If workers do not have stable and predictable work” to mean. I do that because that’s language typically used in support of organized labour.
I think that Lie 2 runs into the problem of zooming out too far and trying to undo the tangled skein of modern society in order to fix one problem. I think it’s far better for us to grab hold of one thread and pull like the Dickens. I think we need to view civic engagement as the one keystone around which solutions to the rest of the problems can be built. My approach may not be perfect, but I think it’s our best shot at keeping the goals do-able and egalitarian. We won't solve every problem, but we will still probably be better off than when we started.
I don’t know that addressing #2 requires as much mission creep as you fear. To build on your affection for Putnam, it may be as simple as asking, after joining an organization, what kinds of practices would make it more accessible for others, especially those with work commitments or affordability issues, whether that’s offering volunteer childcare or additional/different meeting times. Or as I’m finding in trying to cultivate more and better weak ties in my own community, shopping local and being conscious of which local businesses offer living wages when I do get choices about where to buy.
When we seek participation, asking questions like “are we really being inclusive across the income spectrum within our community” and “what issues would make the biggest difference to prioritize if we wanted to sustain robust civic participation” are entirely reasonable. Baby steps on both democratic health and economic renewal can go hand in hand, rather than making the one a nonnegotiable prerequisite for the other.
Great stuff... Thank you. ... I appreciate the "solution approaches" that others are presenting. I want to point to one myself, which addresses all three lies we tell ourselves. See the Wise Democracy Project at https://www.wisedemocracy.org/2-solving-national-issues.html