Saul Alinsky, community organizingand rules for radicals.pdf Only two kinds of people can afford the luxury of acting onprinciple, those with absolute power and those with none andno desire to get any...everyone else who wants to be effective inpolitics has to learn to be 'unprincipled' enough to compromisein order to see their principles succeed. (Rogers 1990: 12)Liberals in their meetings utter bold words; they strut,grimace belligerently, and then issue a weasel-worded statement'which has tremendous implications, if read between the lines.'They sit calmly, dispassionately, studying the issue; judging bothsides; they sit and still sit. (Alinsky 1971: 4)The Radical may resort to the sword but when he does he isnot filled with hatred against those individuals whom he attacks.He hates these individuals not as persons but as symbolsrepresenting ideas or interests which he believes to be inimicalto the welfare of the people. (Alinsky 1946: 23)Saul David Alinsky (1909-1972) was both a committed organizer andactivist (founding the Industrial Areas Foundation in Chicago) and an influentialwriter. His books Reveille for Radicals (1946) and Rules for Radicals(1972) were, and remain, important statements of community organizing. Alinsky'sideas bear careful exploration and have a continuing relevance for informaleducators and all those whose role involves trying to effect change incommunities. They are particularly useful for those who have to engage withlocal or national power structures and workers who wish to engage alienatedor disparate communities and seek common cause between them.His thoughts on the nature of work with communities are challenging, andyet relevant. In this article I want to expand on three areas. On: the place of principles and morality in community work; what it is to be a liberal or a radical; and rules for how to engage with power structures effectively.The three quotes above are meant to encapsulate his thinking on thesesubjects. I will go on to expand on the ideas that stem from them.Saul Alinsky's life and workSaul Alinsky was born in Chicago on 30 January 1909, the child ofRussian-Jewish immigrant parents. Saul Alinsky's parents divorced when hewas 13 years old, and he went to live with his father who had moved to LosAngeles. At an early age he was interested in the dynamics of power and theinteraction between those who are denied resources and those who deny. 'Inever thought of walking on the grass,' he recalls, 'until I saw a sign saying'Keep off the grass.' Then I would stomp all over it.'He earned a doctorate in archaeology from the University of Chicagoin 1930. However, it was spending a summer helping dissident miners intheir revolt against John L. Lewis's United Mine Workers that influenced hisfuture direction. Upon graduation he won a fellowship from the university'ssociology department which enabled him to study criminology. He wentto work for Clifford Shaw at the Institute for Juvenile Research and soonfound himself working at the State Penitentiary (at which he stayed for threeyears). At this time he married Helene Simon, with whom he had a son anda daughter. He had met Helene while studying at the University and theymarried in 1932. As Horwitt (1989: 17) has commented, the Depression andthe growing turbulence of the 1930s politicized both of them. Helene, a socialworker, was a strong organizer and gained a considerable reputation in thelabour movement.In 1936 Saul Alinsky left his work at the Penitentiary to return to theInstitute in Chicago. He appeared set for a career as a criminologist, howevera growing concern to counter the threat of Fascism, and the development ofmore militant labour organizing (especially that linked to the developmentof the Committee for Industrial Organization (CIO) grew in their appeal.Alinsky was particularly struck by the way in which John L. Lewis led the CIO(Horwitt 1989: 17). Clifford Shaw and Saul Alinsky were both convinced thatit was the 'social milieu' that caused delinquency rather than some particularquality of individuals. It was the study of this - and in particular gang life -that took Alinsky to South Chicago and then to the Back-of-the-Yards (theslum area that Upton Sinclair had earlier written so movingly about in TheJungle). There Saul Alinsky found a number of people who wanted change.Joe Meegan, who had grown up in the area worked his way through De PaulUniversity, and had become a teacher became a key ally and together theyset up the Back-of-the-Yards Neighborhood Council. While historically anIrish-Catholic community, they were able to identify common interests thatbrought together previously hostile ethnic groups of Serbs and Croatians,Czechs and Slovaks, Poles and Lithuanians in the community and broughtthem into the organization. Alinsky also worked closely with local Catholicpriests to build the council. The way they built the coalition meant that thecouncil had great success in stabilizing the Back-of-the-Yards neighborhoodand in advocating for that community.In 1939 Saul Alinsky established the Industrial Areas Foundation tobring his method of reform to other declining urban neighborhoods. He leftthe Institute to work for the Foundation. His approach depended on unitingordinary citizens around immediate grievances in their neighborhoods andin protesting vigorously and outside of the 'established' ways of expressingdissent (see below). He concentrated on recruiting and training indigenous'organizers' to take a lead in the communities. His first book Reveille forRadicals outlines the principles and practice of community organizing andjust one month after its publication in 1946 it made the New York Times bestsellerlist (Horwitt 1989: 176).Alinsky was busy - and often on the road - and things looked promising.But in 1947 Helene drowned while on holiday with the children - and ithit him hard. He found it difficult to focus for many months; furthermorethe financial position of the Foundation was not good. Saul Alinsky took onwriting an 'unauthorized biography' of John L Lewis (which appeared in1949) in part to stabilize his own finances. He also began working with FredRoss around organizing Mexican-Americans in California. Significantlythough, Saul Alinsky was not a casualty of the hysteria surrounding radicalsand supposed communists in the late 1940s and early 1950s (Horwitt 1989:240). He continued to have significant support from key figures in the CatholicChurch and the press - and his combative style might well have backfired onany congressional investigation committee that called him before them (op.cit.).Saul Alinsky had looked around for new writing projects (includingproposing a joint book with C Wright Mills) - and although he started workon a biography of Monsignor John O'Grady it was not completed. Thecommunity organizing work - with the exception of the Back-of-the-Yards(under Joe Meegan) and California (Fred Ross) - was not developing. In 1952Alinsky married Jean Graham (who had a debutante background and wasdivorced from an executive of Bethlehem Steel) (Horwitt 1989: 256). Jeandid not have a strong interest in Alinsky's social and political work - but hadrebelled against her family's upper-class elitism (op. cit.: 257). Sadly, thoughshe was to become ill with multiple sclerosis not long after they were married.New areas of work opened up including working in Woodlawn and beyondwith Puerto Ricans (with Nicholas von Hoffman and the Catholic Church).He also looked to New York and began to develop work there with variousorganizations with mixed results. This took him away from home (and Jean).The Industrial Areas Foundation gained a significant amount of moneyfrom the Archdiocese of Chicago in 1957 to undertake a study of the changes inlocal communities resulting from population shifts (in particular the growingAfrican American) - and the tensions and discrimination involved. As part ofthe study a number of priests were to be trained in community analysis andorganization. Saul Alinsky also worked to bring the first major modern civilrights effort to Chicago, which as Horwitt (1989: 363) has commented was themost segregated city in the North. He also continued be active in more generalcommunity organizing - especially around Chicago. The work in Woodlawn,in particular, attracted attention with its focus on local organizing and itscritique of 'welfare colonialism'. As Charles Silberman noted in his bestsellingstudy Crisis in Black and White (which appeared in 1964), Alinsky'sapproach (through the work of the Temporary Woodlawn Association - TWO)was of great significance. It looked to put much more control in the handsof local people. Silberman recognized that large scale state intervention wasneeded in terms of schooling, job creation and health - but how these were tobe brought about, 'at whose direction and initiative, was critically important(Horwitt 1989: 449).Press and media attention to Saul Alinsky grew significantly following thepublication of Crisis in Black and White. He became something of a celebrity- for example featuring in a series of interviews in Harper's. On the domesticfront his relationship with Jean his wife had deteriorated. She was living inCalifornia for most of the time while Saul Alinsky worked out of Chicago. In1966 Alinsky met and developed a relationship with Irene McInnis. Jean andSaul Alinsky divorced, amicably it is said, in 1969 - and he married Irene in1971 (Horwitt 1989: 536).Saul Alinsky became more critical of both the approach and the tactics ofthe 1960's young radicals. 'A guy has to be a political idiot,' he told them,'to say all power comes out of the barrel of a gun when the other side hasthe guns.' He was very distrustful of the charismatic elements of some ofthe new radical movements. For him both action and direction had to berooted in the practical concerns of the masses. America's War on Poverty sawthe expansion of Saul Alinsky's organisation and its influence. In New Yorkhe successfully organized local African American residents to pressure thecity's largest employer, the Eastman Kodak Company, to hire more AfricanAmericans and also to give them a role in recruitment.However, he soon fell out further with both the establishment and more'radical elements'. He called President Johnson's War on Poverty 'a hugepolitical pork barrel' and found it increasingly difficult to work with localAfrican American groups influenced by 'Black Power' who understandablydid not want to function under white leadership. He remained active tillhis death, organizing white worker councils in Chicago, steelworkers inPittsburgh, Indians in Canada, and Chicanos in the Southwest, where heinfluenced Cesar Chavez, who was later to found the first successful labororganization among California farm workers. Alinsky's second book, Rulesfor Radicals: A Political Primer for Practical Radicals, published in 1971was a reflection on the lessons he felt he had learned in this later period. It,like Reveille for Radicals was a publishing success - and has had a long-termappeal.Saul Alinsky died on June 12, 1972 in Carmel, California. He had been tovisit Jean, gone to a bank, and then collapsed outside of a heart attack.Alins ky on means and en dsSaul Alinsky had a particular take on the subject of means and ends, orin the terminology of informal education, on process and product. He wasspecifically impatient with people who would not take action for reasonsof principle. As he says in his chapter 'Of Means and Ends' in Rules forRadicals.He who sacrifices the mass good for his personal conscience has a peculiarconception of 'personal salvation'; he doesn't care enough for people to 'becorrupted' for them. (Alinsky 1972: 25)He thought that the morality of action needed not to be judged in or ofitself but weighed against the morality of inaction. As Saul Alinsky states atthe outset of the chapter:The man of action views the issue of means and ends in pragmaticand strategic terms. He has no other problem; he thinks only of his actualresources and the possibilities of various choices of action. He asks of endsonly whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whetherthey will work. To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends is to believe in theimmaculate conception of ends and principles. (Alinsky 1972: 24)Alinsky then proceed to develop a set of rules regarding the ethics ofmeans and ends. Given his take on morality the idea of a set of rules aboutthem seems ironic and this was part of his idiosyncratic style. Saul Alinskycan seem very amoral in his statements. I think that it is helpful to treat themas questions upon which to reflect when considering the morality of meansand ends. For him the point was not to dwell on the morals people shouldhold, but to understand the morals which guide people in practice.Here I want to highlight the key elements of his approach - as outlinedin Rules.1) One's concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely withone's personal interest in the issue, and one's distance from the scene ofconflict (Alinsky 1972: 26). Saul Alinsky was critical of those who criticizedthe morality of actions they were not involved in, were dispassionate aboutor were not touched by. For him, the further people are away from theconflict, the more they fuss over the moral delicacies. Furthermore, suchmoralising and distancing denies one's own culpability. He agreed withPeck that the demonizing of and moralising about the soldiers in the MaiLai Massacre in the Vietnam War (where soldiers massacred 400 civilians)was hypocritical. For Alinsky the questions were how do people got to thepoint of committing atrocities, how people were socialised into the army, itscultures of responsibility, who becomes a soldier and ultimately why the warwas being fought. Sadly such concerns are still relevant today.2) The judgement of the ethics of means is dependent upon the politicalposition of those sitting in judgement (Alinsky 1972: 26-9).Our cause had to be all shining justice, allied with the angels; theirs had tobe all evil, tied to the Devil; in no war has the enemy or the cause ever beengray. (Alinsky 1972: 3)Yet nowadays, with the need for propaganda over, the declaration is stilltaken to be self evidently true. For Saul Alinsky, both parties in a dispute willclaim, and need to claim, that the opposition's means are immoral and theirown means are ethical and rooted in the highest of human values. This seemsto be true of the wars in the Falklands, the Balkans, Afghanistan, Iraq etc.We portray ourselves as fighting for reasons such as freedom, democracy,protecting the innocent and portray the 'insurgents' as displaying the oppositemoral characteristics.3) In war, the end justifies almost any means (Alinsky 1972: 29-30). ForSaul Alinsky people are expedient in the moment, and then find ways tojustify this as consistent and moral after the fact. For example, Churchill wasasked how he could reconcile himself to siding with the communists, givenhis stated opinions. He responded, 'I have only one purpose, the destructionof Hitler, and my life is much simplified thereby.' Yet prior to the war he said'One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his patriotic achievements. Ifour country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as admirable torestore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations' - (GreatContemporaries: 1937). During the war the allies, and Britain in particularsupported the communist led resistance in Greece. Yet after the war Churchillturned British guns on communist partisans who had fought with the alliesin the second world war in the Greek Civil war and supported the return of amonarchy for Greece.Saul Alinsky uses the example of the American Declaration ofIndependence to elaborate on this statement: To the Colonists who drafted it,the Declaration was self evidently true; to the British, it deliberately ignoredthe benefits of the British presence. The colonists recognized at the time thatthe document was not balanced and was to some extent propaganda.4) The judgement of the ethics of means must be made in the context ofthe times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronologicalvantage point (Alinsky 1972: 30-2). Saul Alinsky uses the example of theBoston Massacre to illustrate his point. Patrick Carr, one of the townspeopleshot dead by the British, stated on his deathbed that the townspeople hadbeen the aggressors and that the British fired in self-defence. This admissionthreatened to destroy the martyrdom that the Revolutionary Leader, SamAdams, had invested in the townspeople. Adams thereby discredited PatrickCarr as 'an Irish papist who had died in the confession of the Roman CatholicChurch.' For Alinsky it would be easy to condemn Adams, but as he says, weare not today involved in a revolution against the British Empire. Alinskysays we have to judge the act through the lens of the times.5) Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available(Alinsky 1972: 232-34). Saul Alinsky said that moral questions may enter theequation when one has alternate means. If one lacks this choice, one will takewhat options one has. He was talking at a time when there was condemnationof the tactic of the Viet Cong of sending children to plant bombs in barsfrequented by American soldiers. He would have probably have understoodthe actions of suicide bombers, or at least would have said the question is not'how could anyone do this'? but what drove them to see these actions as theironly effective tactics.6) The less important the end, the more one engage in ethical evaluationsabout means (Alinsky 1972: 34). This is similar to Saul Alinsky's first point,the question being how people's moralizing changes according to howimportant the end is to them. As a parallel, many informal educators I haveworked with moralise very differently about, for example, the young peoplethey work with compared to their own children. With the young people theywork with, they recognise that they will experiment with drugs, alcohol andsex as a part of their 'means' of growing up; and have ways of reacting tothe young people when they do these things. However they react to theirown children using drugs and alcohol and having sex quite differently! Such'means' are not an options for them.7) Success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics (Alinsky 1972:34).Yesterday's immoral terrorist is today's moral and dignified statesman ofhigh standing -- because he was successful. Yesterday's moral statesman issitting in front of a 'war crimes tribunal' today -- because he lost. (Connachie2001)Saul Alinsky saw this as an extension of the old adage that history favoursthe winners. I am sure Churchill would be remembered very differently hadwe lost the war. He also identified 'winners' as those in power, not necessarilyin a complimentary way, but simply in recognition that at present, those withpower are winning. From this perspective, whether groups are defined asterrorists or freedom fighters, is normally determined by those in power.8) The morality of a means depends upon whether the means is beingemployed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory (Alinsky 1972:34-5). This relates to point five and says that we should judge different actsdifferently at different points. If a person cheats because they are desperate,we should judge it differently than if they cheat when they are winning.Similarly if a person steals to feed their children, it is different from theft bysomeone who already has a lot of money. Interestingly, at present, for a firstoffence or a small amount, both are likely to receive a fine in the UK. Thisseems the opposite of Alinsky's principle in that the poor person would beless able to pay the fine, and have a greater (admittedly only financial) impacton them than on the richer person.9) Any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as beingunethical (Alinsky 1972: 35-6). Alinsky sees one of the tactics of those in abattle is to judge the other side as being immoral. We will find ways to judgetheir methods as unethical even if they are also used by our side. We will,of course, be using them is a slightly different, more moral, way. As a youthworker I remember having a battle with a certain management committeeabout the use of the building, in particular about whether we needed the fullsizesnooker table that dominated one room - and which no young peopleused. At first they questioned whether I was being truly representative of theyoung people in their views about the table, despite this being my role in themeeting. When I brought the young people to express their own views to themanagement committee they said I had put them on the spot in a meeting,which was not appropriate, despite them having invited them. When the youngpeople wrote in to express their views, the management committee said thatwhile they were the young people in the club, they questioned whether theywere representative of the young people 'in the community'. The snookertable stayed.10) You do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moralgarments (Alinsky 1972: 36-45). Interestingly while this may seem the mostmorally redundant, Saul Alinsky uses the example of Mahatma Gandhi'sconcept of 'passive resistance' as an illustration. He points out that, perhaps'passive resistance' was simply:... the only intelligent, realistic, expedient program which Gandhi had athis disposal; and that the 'morality' which surrounded this policy of passiveresistance was to a large degree a rationale to cloak a pragmatic programwith a desired and essential moral cover.... Confronted with the issue of whatmeans he could employ against the British, we come to the other criteriapreviously mentioned; that the kind of means selected and how they can beused is significantly dependent upon the face of the enemy, or the characterof his opposition. Gandhi's opposition not only made the effective use ofpassive resistance possible but practically invited it. His enemy was a Britishadministration characterized by an old, aristocratic, liberal tradition, onewhich granted a good deal of freedom to its colonials and which always hadoperated on a pattern of using, absorbing, seducing, or destroying, throughflattery or corruption, the revolutionary leaders who arose from the colonialranks. This was the kind of opposition that would have tolerated and ultimatelycapitulated before the tactic of passive resistance. (Alinsky 1972: 38, 41)It is an interesting question whether Gandhi's passive resistance wouldhave stood a chance against a totalitarian state. What we do know, as SaulAlinsky points out, is that eight months after securing independence, theIndian National Congress outlawed passive resistance, making it a crime.In conclusion on the subject of the morality of means and ends, as Alinskywrites: 'Means and ends are so qualitatively interrelated that the true questionhas never been the proverbial one, 'Does the End justify the Means?' butalways has been 'Does this particular end justify this particular means?'(Alinsky 1972: 47).As we can see from the opening quote, Saul Alinsky was contemptuousof the kind of liberal thinking that led to inaction. Indeed, he devoted asignificant part of Reveille for Radicals comparing the radical and liberalorientations. He was also equally contemptuous of what he termed 'suicidal'or 'rhetorical' radicals. He starts the prologue to Rules for Radicals byaddressing what he sees as the new generation of radicals, and the folly ofsome of their approaches.The Revolutionary force today.. are reminiscent of the idealistic earlyChristians, yet they also urge violence and cry, 'Burn the system down!' Theyhave no illusions about the system, but plenty of illusions about the way tochange our world. It is to this point that I have written this book. (Alinsky1972: xiii).He then goes on to analyse how the radicals of his generation, to alarge extent, either did not survive, or did not move beyond the dialecticalmaterialism of orthodox Marxism, a set of beliefs that he also thought hadhad their day. He also had sympathy for the new radicals, and the rejectionof the lifestyles they had settled for that lead their parents to tranquillizers,alcohol, long-term-endurance marriages, or divorces, high blood pressure,ulcers, frustration and the disillusionment of the 'good life,'. He then givessome quite poignant analysis of the 'generation gap' between radicals, andhow they fail to communicate with each other. He has some sympathy withwhy the new radicals have rejected the standpoint of their older comrades.However, he is also scathing of some of the tactics employed by some of thenew radicals as alternatives.… Some panic and run, rationalizing that the system is going to collapseanyway of its own rot and corruption and so they're copping out, goinghippie or yippie, taking drugs, trying communes, anything to escape. Otherswent for pointless sure-loser confrontations so that they could fortify theirrationalization and say, 'Well, we tried and did our part' and then they coppedout too. Others sick with guilt and not knowing where to turn or what to dowent berserk. These were the Weathermen and their like: they took the grandcop-out, suicide. To these I have nothing to say or give but pity - and in somecases contempt, for such as those who leave their dead comrades and take offfor Algeria or other points. (Alinsky 1972: xvii).He particularly lamented their lack of communication, and alienation ofthe bulk of the masses who might otherwise have supported them. At the timethere was trend for burning the American flag, something he saw as goingoutside of, and alienating the bulk of the masses. 'The responsible organizerwould have known that it is the establishment that has betrayed the flag whilethe flag, itself, remains the symbol of America's hopes and aspirations,. Hetakes the analogy further saying that the radical needs to work within theexperience of his or her community. He built this, and other ideas into his'rules for radicals' saying that while 'there are no rules for revolution anymore than there are rules for love or rules for happiness … there are certaincentral concepts of action in human politics that operate regardless of thescene or the time' (Alinsky 1972: xviii). Before I expand on these rules, it isworth noting that, for Saul Alinsky it is important that the radical, at least in thefirst instance, works within the system. This is important as it was a challengeto many radical groups who were quite separatist at the time, advocatingcommunities, or even just the active militants in a community, withdraw andorganize internally. He again liked the approach to the distinction betweenbeing a realistic and a rhetorical radical.As an organizer I start from where the world is, as it is, not as I would likeit to be. That we accept the world as it is does not in any sense weaken ourdesire to change it into what we believe it should be - it is necessary to beginwhere the world is if we are going to change it to what we think it should be.That means working in the system. (Alinsky 1972: xix).He postulated that for radical change to happen the great mass of peopleneed to be in favor, even passively of change. However he also thought peopleare naturally fearful of change and that unless they feel 'so frustrated, sodefeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing tolet go of the past and chance the future', revolution will not happen. He calledfor alliances between radicals and 'blue collar', or 'hard hat' workers, whomay still have an investment in the system, even if this meant a compromiseon ones goals. Otherwise,They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging.If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to formalliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, butlet's not let it happen by default. (Alinsky 1972: xx).Furthermore, he felt that people should not underestimate the room tomanoeuvre in democratic systems. Saul Alinsky did not deny governmentharassment, but still felt that the system had potential to be reformed.More to the point unless the masses thought that these avenues had beenexhausted, they would not embrace change. He felt that many of the newradical movements, erroneously, wanted to skip the organising phase and gostraight for revolution, turning potential allies, and even those communitiesthey were meant to be representing, against them. For Alinsky, to take sucha suicidal approach means 'there is no play, nothing but confrontation forconfrontation's sake - a flare-up and back to darkness' (op. cit.). He sawsthe involvement and active participation of citizens in issues where they hadreal concerns, as the key, both to radicalism and democracy. He was cynicalabout easy sloganeering, especially when some of the heroes of the day werecited.Spouting quotes from Mao, Castro, and Che Guevara, which are asgermane to our highly technological, computerized, cybernetic, nuclearpowered,mass media society as a stagecoach on a jet runway at Kennedyairport. (Alinsky 1972: xxv).Tacti cs for radicalsThe bulk of the rest of Rules for Radicals is concerned with tactics, whichhe sometimes also refers to as the rules of power politics. I will expandon each in turn. I will also give examples from Mark Thomas, a UK-basedsocialist comedian who I think uses these techniques in his show.1) Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks youhave (Alinsky 1972: 127). In the book he says that if one has mass support,one should flaunt it, if one does not one should make a lot of noise, if onecannot make a big noise, make a big stink. Mark Thomas uses this techniquefrequently. When complaining about the tube privatization he formed a bandof famous names and asked them to perform on the tube singing protest songsabout it.2) Never go outside the experience of your people (Alinsky 1972: 127).Mark Thomas makes extensive use of such techniques as getting the publicto ring up their elected representatives or have mass letter writing campaigns.He will also put familiar mechanisms to other uses. When complaining aboutthe use of organophosphates he put up yellow appeals for witness signs todraw attention to the public. When investigating Crown immunity to murder,when a person was run over by an army Landrover he put up tiredness killssigns all over the front of the army base.3) Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy (Alinsky1972: 127). Mark Thomas would continually try and dumbfound people.When complaining about the building of a dam that was to displace 15,000people in Turkey he built an ice sculpture of a dam in front on the headquartersof the company building it.4) Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules (Alinsky 1972: 128).This is one of Mark Thomas's favorite tactics. He found out that people whoinherited expensive paintings could avoid inheritance tax by allowing thepublic to have access to the painting. He got the public to ring up numerouspeople who had done this and request to see the paintings. When they refused,or refused everyone he managed to get the law changed.5) Ridicule is man's most potent weapon (Alinsky 1972: 128). MarkThomas was complaining about the exporting of guns to Iran, where thegovernment had claimed that they did not know the pipes were going to beused for that purpose because they had been put down as something elsefor export terms, despite the fact that they could not have been used for thatpurpose. He protested by painting a tank pink, put a plastic ice-cream cone onthe top of it and tried to export it as an ice cream van.6) A good tactic is one that your people enjoy (Alinsky 1972: 128). Whensome pensioners had arranged to have, what could easily have been a boringmeeting with a health minister, he got them to ask questions in the form ofa dance routine. He also get a group of people to protest against GM cropsby wearing radioactive protection gear and running around with Geigercounters.7) A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag (Alinsky 1972: 128).Mark Thomas confesses to using a series of 'stunts', to make his points. Hetends to use a lot of small actions, as illustrated about, rather than a prolongedaction. This approach leads into the eighth rule.8) Keep the pressure on (Alinsky 1972: 128). Saul Alinsky says not torest on ones laurels if one has a partial victory. He says we should keep inmind Franklin D. Roosevelt's response to a reform delegation, 'Okay, you'veconvinced me. Now go on out and bring pressure on me!' For Alinsky, actioncomes from keeping the heat on. When protesting about the use of humanprotein in baby milk by Nestle Mark Thomas asks questions in a publicmeeting with the CEO presentation about corporate responsibility, he hasa protest at an international conference, he writes letters to the board, heinterviews specialists and the scientists from the company, he has protestswith animal impersonators, visits the farm where the herd of cows being usedare kept and drives round to the ministry of agriculture in a milk tanker andstarts cleaning the windows with the milk.9) The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself (Alinsky1972: 129). When Saul Alinsky leaked word that large numbers of poorpeople were going to tie up the washrooms of O'Hare Airport, Chicago cityauthorities quickly agreed to act on a longstanding commitment to a ghettoorganization. They imagined the mayhem as thousands of passengers pouredoff airplanes to discover every washroom occupied. Then they imagined theinternational embarrassment and the damage to the city's reputation. Again,when challenging the avoidance of inheritance tax, Mark threatened to havemore and more people requesting to see the paintings if a change did nothappen.10) The major premise for tactics is the development of operations thatwill maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition (Alinsky 1972: 129).Such pressure is necessary, Saul Alinsky argued, in order to get reaction fromthe opposition. He argued that 'the action is in the reaction' (op. cit.).11) If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through intoits counterside (Alinsky 1972: 129). Essentially, this is to not give up and beafraid to concentrate on the negative aspects. In many cases Mark's pushingof the negative aspects led to changes, such as a change in the law for thepaintings, Nestle reconsidering their production of milk and Channel Fourproducing a website for posting up MEP's interests (which is compulsory inother countries). He also succeeded in getting some serious questions askedabout corporate killing in Parliament.12) The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative (Alinsky1972: 130). This is the other side of the previous rule. If one does push the otherparty through to changing one has to offer some kind of solution. This wouldbe one of my criticisms of Mark Thomas; he rarely offers solutions to the issuesthat he raises. It probably highlights the difference between an entertainer anda community organizer. It would also be one of Saul Alinsky's main criticismsand goes back to the distinction he made between a real and a rhetorical radical.He had little time for some on the ultra left who knew what they were protestingagainst, but had little idea what they were fighting for. It is noticeable that MarkThomas does achieve concrete things, when he has concrete demands.13) Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it (Alinsky 1972:130). This is perhaps Saul Alinsky's most controversial rule and is the counterto the common idea that we should not make things personal. When pursuingthe changes in the inheritance law for paintings he targets one individual. Hewill often find out who the CEO is in a company and hound that person. In theorganophosphates debate it is one scientist that he targets and the validity of hisfindings.Conclusi onSaul Alinsky's ideas could be seen as controversial, but he was effectiveand practical as a community activist, and his work and writing deserves to bemore widely known among those involved in informal education, communitydevelopment work and social pedagogy. Not that his principles and rules areunquestionable or right for every situation, but they are a practical toolkit toeffect change though leverage in those with power, potentially of great worthto those engaged in community work and education. In addition, next time onehears someone make a moral judgment about another, or make a claim to be aradical, I would encourage the reader to think about Saul Alinsky's ideas.Furthe r reading and referen cesAlinsky, Saul D. (1946) Reveille for Radicals. (1969 edn.), New York:Random House. Written in Alinsky's catchy style, this influential text includeschapters around purpose; means and ends; words; the education of an organizer;communication; beginnings; tactics; the way ahead.Alinsky, Saul D. (1971) Rules for Radicals. A pragmatic primer for realisticradicals (1972 edn), New York: Vintage. 196 + xxvi pages. Focuses on thebuilding of people's organizations with chapters on programmes; leadership;community traditions; tactics; popular education; and psychologicalobservations on mass organization.Sanford D. Horwitt (1989) Let Them Call Me Rebel: Saul Alinsky, HisLife and Legacy. New York : Knopf. The major study of Alinsky's life andcontribution.We bsitesInterview with Saul Alinsky, published in Playboy in 1972. The interviewis in twelve parts. The entire text is copied onto one page, here.Website devoted to a documentary about Saul Alinsky and his legacy,Democratic Promise.Some excerpts from Reveille for Radicals.Mark E. Santow: Saul Alinsky and the dilemmas of race in the post-warcity - ScholarlyCommon@Penn (University of Pennsylvania).'Problem of the Century,' in TIME (book Reveille for Radicals reviewedby Whittaker Chambers, published February 25, 1946)'Democrats and the Legacy of Activist Saul Alinsky'. The NPR hostRobert Siegel discusses Alinsky's legacy with biographer Sanford Horwitt.At issue is that Democratic Presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clintonand Barack Obama claim to be influenced by Saul Alinksy.Saul Alinsky and the industrial areas foundation (progress.org)Saul Alinsky, The American Radical from the Free Range ActivismWebsiteSaul Alinsky - latter-rain.com - reproduces the prologue from Rules forRadicals.

Скачать электронную версию публикации