Our New Anahuac

Every movement adapts differing strategies, goals and tactics. These past several months, I have focused on community organizing, as I always have. I have been talking more and more to different people and reading more, and I have come to understand a little more clearly some of these differences. What I knew before, perhaps intuitively, I have come to understand better.

Recently, I have been focusing on the Northeast part of town. At the time, we were focusing on the the documentary about Hutto, the immigrant baby jail. We would show the video, and then promote a discussion. Most of the people involved were from the neighborhood, and had little to no organizational experience and about the same amount of institutional education, but the discussion was lively.

One theory proposed by the community organizing strategy is that the people closest to the problem often come up with the best solutions. The books which promote this strategy all beseech organizers to have faith in the people when it comes to this part of the process. Believe in the people, and they will provide the solution to their own problems. The participants themselves came up with a few very cogent points.

In this case, the theory met the practice. This strategy differs greatly from the strategy of “being the voice for those who have none.” The community organizer believes that everyone has a voice. He/she just needs the development to use it and the organization to put it together with other voices.

In community organizing, it is not about the leader speaking to lawmakers or those who have the power to change it. Rather, it is about helping the people to organize themselves to force that change. In my opinion, it is a path much more difficult, and much less glamorous than the advocacy approach.

In community organizing, we face the obstacles that are the real cause of our problems, like self esteem. I remember asking one participant, “que opinas del documental?” “What do you think of the documentary?”

She responded, “quein soy yo para opinar.” More or less, she told me “who am I to have an opinion about that.”

I believe that the motivation behind using the difference in strategy is largely a difference in goals. If the goal is simply to make some policy reform, then I would agree that talking to the politician in charge, and producing studies is the way to go. It is quicker, more direct and more effective.

I guess after thinking about it, and writing a few lines here the most prudent thing would be to list a few of my ideas as to why I continue with a community organizing approach.

I believe that the problem is not just the policy but the lack of power in our community. If we had greater power bases in our communities, these problems would not exist. The problems are merely a symptom of disenfranchisement and low morale.

Strategically, fear is a good thing to instill in your enemies. Franz Fanon writes that the oppressor is never more fearful when the leaders stop talking to the oppressor and start talking to their own people.

My ultimate goal is not policy reform, but the restoration of our full potential as individuals and as a nation (Our New Anahuac). Liberation not liberalism.

Transformative community organizing is an investment in time and energy in these greater goals. It may take longer to achieve the policy goals, but my intention is to achieve much more than bread and butter reform.

I also am not a critic of advocacy. Do your thing. In the end, differing strategies will only help our community, especially if we can avoid in-fighting.

Community organizing, on its own, many times does focus only on policy reform. There is a difference between power based community organizing and transformative community organizing, but we’ll go into that in a different post. I have to get back to Mafia Wars.