Pairing and Intentional Activist Groups: Empowering Diverse Social Movement Organizational Forms
By Michael A. Dover
During the long history of community practice, our years of struggle and consciousness raising have improved our understanding of the need for multicultural organizations, of the central nature of work against racism regardless of organizational composition, and of the relationship between racism and other issues. But what is still needed at this stage of evolution as macro practitioners are new tactics in organization-building which can help us express our evolving consciousness. What can be done to build socially diverse organizational forms which institutionalize progressive visions and link them to actual ongoing struggles of oppressed people? There is clearly no simple solution. The tension between activists who stress organization-building and those who stress strategies for sparking social movements is long-standing. This discussion is geared towards identifying specific tactics related to building organizations which have a closer link to social movements.
This article discusses the recognized problem of lack of diversity within voluntary associations in general and social movement organizations in particular, with a special focus on the issue of the lack of cultural diversity and the need to create organizational forms which ensure the full participation of people of color. The article begins with a literature review of this issue and of the factors identified as being related to continued. Related to this issue is the continued existence of a large population of professional, religious and political organizations which are made up largely of people of color. A literature review and statistics concerning this population of organizations is presented next.
Literature Review
In discussing Marxist applications of game theory, Jon Elster distinguished two possible strategies for each actor in a game: a solidary strategy and an egoist strategy(Elster, 1982). The Afree rider@ problem in game theory, applied to voluntary associations, is the concept that some benefit from membership in an organization without participating, or benefit from close association with the organization without actually joining. A strong argument can be made that one of the sources of problems in voluntary associations is members and others who Afree ride@ by not participating. But rather than Ablame the member,@ perhaps it is important to understand whether there is a latent function to free riding. This latent function may be to enable those who are more active to exercise organizational influence over an atomized membership broken down into uninfluential, under involved individual members. Thus, the interests of the leadership may not be served by increased involvement, as this would threaten perceived influence and control.
Most people (not all) are more adept at one-to-one relationship than one-to-group relationships. While the group provides the arena for establishing one-to-one relationships with new members, it does not always do so. Research is needed to ascertain this, but I would suspect that continued membership is related to successful pairing in one form or another. Discontinued membership may be related to unsuccessful pairing. Buddy systems are used by many groups try to enable pairing. Pairing from the outset is merely another approach to achieving this end. Pairing enables the adoption of a solidary strategy by the two new members, rather than an egoist strategy. Pairing could be analyzed using game theory which looks at two person cooperative games. As Elster points out in another context, AWe do not, that is, simply assume that the cooperative outcome will be realized simply because there is a need for it; rather we exhibit a causal mechanism whereby it will be achieved.@ (p, 473). The use of pairing in a voluntary association is a conscious causal mechanism aimed at enabling new members to adopt a solidary, cooperative, relationship-oriented strategy within overall organizational life.
Organizations which adopt a pairing strategy to membership development actively encourage one or more of several forms of pairing. First, recruitment efforts would encourage people to pair up and join together with someone of a different race, class, gender, age, or sexual orientation.
Second, where this was not possible, an organization would seek to pair a prospective new member with another prospective new member, and where possible these would be diverse pairs.
Third, pairing need not divide natural (but homogenous) pairs of persons who wish to join. Such pairs of prospective members could still join together as a recognized, homogenous pair, but could also be given the opportunity to join a second, heterogenous pair. In such a case, members would participate in two pairs. Fourth, pairing could also be used by existing members to recruit new members with whom they would be paired as buddies. Whichever form of pairing is used, the entire process of joining an organization becomes a process of bonding, not only with the organization but also with the person one joins with. Such a process empowers new members by overcoming their isolation as individuals in a new organization.
Tomeh stressed the value of the use of pairs in order to involve volunteers of color (Tomeh, 1981). She suggested that middle-class volunteers be paired with poverty-area volunteers to work in poor neighborhoods. Kaplan stressed the value of enabling intimate (rather than merely casual) contact between volunteers of different cultural backgrounds (Kaplan, 1993). Hunter and Linn reported a conscious use of pairs of volunteers who were also patients (Hunter & Linn, 1980). Stevens also suggested the use of peer pairing, which she defined as recruiting people in natural or match-made pairs (Stevens, 1991). Oliner and Oliner described attaching and including processes as an important aspect of caring processes in general, and as a key to culturally diverse interaction (Oliner & Oliner, 1995).
Such processes would be enhanced by conscious pairing. Pairing would be one way in which social network recruiting, which Pearce found often had a negative effect on organizational diversity (Pearce, 1993), could be consciously used for the opposite effect. This would take advantage of community-level strengths in networking and social exchange among people of color noted by Morrow-Howell, Lott and Ozawa (1990), Tomeh (1981) and others. Finally, Chavis and Wandersman (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990, p. 76) asked a key question: “How is the link between individual and collective empowerment established?” Pairing of diverse dyads might provide a link between the individual and the organization. Pairing links informal, interpersonal processes with formal, collective processes in an organizational context. It can simultaneously help to make diverse pairs building blocks of a diverse organization.
McPherson and Smith-Lovin utilize a number of theoretical concepts which are essential for understanding the issue of the lack of diversity within voluntary associations(McPherson & Smith-Lovin, 1987). Most important is the concept homophily, in which organizations tend towards homogeneity based upon people feeling comfortable with like individuals. Those who are different are shed towards the periphery, and first the core than then the membership become homogenous. Pairing is a way to avoid this. Yes, pairs themselves may be shed or discarded, but it would be not on the basis of homogeneity but on some other grounds which could be noted and discussed. Pairing is the antidote to homophily.
Existing approaches to building diverse social movement organizations
There are several existing approaching to building diverse social movement organizations. When applied consistently and with commitment, they have value. The new tactics further below are merely an additional approach. One existing approach is to use affirmative action principles in leadership development and board composition. This approach has been used successfully by many organizations, and it is an ongoing and important struggle to find ways to strengthen and make more effective such procedures. But affirmative action in elections and nominations and leadership identification often doesn't address membership composition.
Another approach is outreach campaigns for a more diverse membership. While this has positive benefits, usually there is a limited effect. When organizations are already non-diverse, it is hard to diversify them.
Another approach is restricting membership recruitment to ensure balance. But semi-closed doors can turn people off, and don't necessarily solve the problem. They can result in failing to attract people who might well be effective in building diverse and effective organizations.
“Politics is relationships”
Steve Burghardt of Hunter College School of Social Work wrote a book, The Other Side of Organizing, about the interpersonal aspects of organizing(Burghardt, 1982). He distinguished between Ahard@ and Asoft@ approaches to organizing. He was a critique of Ahard@ styles of organizing, which put the cause and the organization first, and relationships among members second. There is no escaping the reality that the transformation of relationship processes is a prerequisite for building effective social movement organizations. How can organizational form address these issues? How can one build relationships into organizational structure? Perhaps the concept of pairing has application here.
Pairing
What is meant by pairing? Pairing is a form of membership development that promotes members joining as pairs instead of as individuals. Pairing can be a strategy adopted by an existing organization, or by a new organization.
With an existing organization, once the organization adopts the pairing principle, each member is responsible during their next membership year to identify a partner with whom they can re-enroll as a pair of members for the following membership year. Within existing organizations, diverse pairing can be a strategy for building new task forces, committees, etc.. Short of adopting paired dyads as the fundamental (even constitutional) membership unit, pairing can still be utilized to enhance intra-organizational functioning. It can be used, for instance, to build task forces and committees or even new leadership structures.
With new organizations, or new chapters of old organizations, new members join in a diverse pair rather than as individuals. The use of a pairing strategy for development of a diverse organization works in a variety of ways.
Outreach and publicity would encourage people to Apair up and join,@ and to pair up in ways which encourage diversity. For instance, to pair up with someone of a different generation, race, sexual orientation, disability status, class, gender, age, or sexual orientation. Each organization would have to discuss what criteria of diversity would be sought within any pair. In terms of building organizations which wish to undertake making a contribution to the struggle against institutional racism, clearly race is an important factor. Since race is a culturally constructed concept, a better way of viewing this is in terms of pairing based upon nationality.
For instance, African-Americans are not a race of people but an historically oppressed people: they constitute within the United State an oppressed nationality in that as a people they were enslaved and forged a national identity out of that historic experience. This is also the case for Puerto-Rican Americans and Mexican-Americans. Native Americans as a whole may be considered as constituted by hundreds of historically oppressed nations of indigenous people. So one basis for pairing is to build upon the requirement that each pair is a pair which includes at least one representative of an oppressednationality.
Pairing has the added benefit of Abuilding in@ a Abuddy system@ into membership development. Buddy systems are tried and true membership development strategies. And pairing could be a concept used by existed members to recruit new members with whom they would be paired as buddies. But this is not the primary thrust of pairing proposed here. Pairing is seen here as an approach to building new, diverse organizations from scratch. In the pairing approach, the entire process of joining an organization becomes a process of bonding not only with the organization but also with the person one joins with. Such a strategy goes beyond volunteering and incorporates organizing and unity building into new organizational forms.
There are two ways of looking at this. One could, or one could not, require that each pair be diverse. After all, a pair itself, regardless of whether it is a diverse pair, is a positive thing. Would an organization want to tell a white woman not to recruit or join with another woman, or a person of color not to recruit or join with a person of color, or tell two white males not to join together for that matter? Well, come to think of it, it might, especially if the organization has truly prioritized ensuring it is a diverse organization, and especially if measures have been taken (for instance, the existence of Amatchmaking pairs@, which could help link up such natural but non-diverse pairs with others with whom they could join). But regardless what the organization chooses, by encouraging pairing, and diverse pairing, a link between the individual, the dyad, and the group is mobilized in a way which can be empowering to an organization.
Founding and Building Diverse Organizations
There is some anecdotal support for the view that new organizations founded or organized by a pair of persons have more potential for longevity than organizations started by an individual. In that view, if the first two members are a cohesive pair, there is a greater degree of likelihood of organizational success. For a great example of the power of pairing, Giselle Dover and I recently were overjoyed to watch our friend from Ann Arbor days of old, Patrick Husted, play the role of Dr. Bob Smith in the Off-Broadway play, Bill W. And Dr. Bob, about the founders of Alcoholics Anonymous. This was a pair of people, diverse by geography, profession, and religion, who were united by a process of self-help, service and spirituality which formed the basis of unity of one of the world=s most successful grassroots fellowships.
For another organization, take the example of an organization I helped found, the Bertha Capen Reynolds Society, now the Social Welfare Action Alliance. It was largely initiated by a diverse pair of two individuals, diverse by gender, age and political orientation (one, myself, coming from the Old Left, the other, Marti Bombyk, coming from a New Left and feminist background). After serving as Co-Conveners of the Call to Join the Society, during the first year years of the organization’s life, Marti and I worked very closely building SWAA and its membership.
No doubt there are many other similar examples. In general, I would contend that organizations founded by diverse pairs may have greater survival prospects than organizations built by sole founders. From a research standpoint, survival analysis could be done of start-up organizations in an effort to ascertain the extent to which organizational survival is associated with formation by an individual or a pair and whether there are obvious or perhaps less obvious degrees to which the pair was diverse.
However, one immediate objection might be raised. If the goal of an organization is to stimulate involvement, would it essentially be creaming those who are able to easily form dyads and join as a pair? How would one involve people who have difficulty finding someone else to join with? For one approach to this problem, please see the next section, on matchmaking pairs.
But first it is valuable to consider the social movement principle that one ought to engage at least some of one=s energies in organizing within one=s own community. True, community can be broadly defined. But if your community is not diverse, how could one easily form a diverse pair? There are two ways of reacting to such a perception. First, it has been my experience that often the community of concern is in fact diverse, but affirmative efforts have to be made to overcome the divisions which prevent people from forming dyadic relationships. Often this requires re-thinking concepts such as Aradical@, Aprogressive@, Aleft@, etc..
Even if a community is not very diverse along the criteria of diversity that one is concerned with politically in a particular context, it is certainly possible for that community to identify a second community with which one seeks to build ties. And to set out to build ties, one diverse pair after another, with that other community.
The question of order of initiation must, however, be raised. If community A initiates the contact with community B, and one individual from community A formed a diverse organizing pair with an individual from community B, what is the next step? Should yet another person from community A reach out to another person from community B, forming the second diverse pair? That would not be ideal. Ideally, the second pair would be initiated by a second individual in community B, perhaps encouraged by the member of the first pair who was from community B. Of course, the point here is not to be rigid, the point is to raise the issue of order of initiation for consideration. And the point is that even within a community that is not diverse on the basis of the aspect of diversity of concern at the moment, it is possible to adopt pairing as a process.
In fact, why not build entire new organizations with the unit of membership being pairs of people? Joining the organization would not be done as an individual but as a pair. If you wanted to join, you would have to Apair up and join.@ There would always be an even number of members. Each leadership body would be lead by a pair and each leadership collective would have an even number of people and be made up by pairs of members, ideally member pairs rather than specially constructed pair.