Bayard Rustin and the Audacity of Hope

President Obama's posthumous award of the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Bayard Rustin on November 20, 2013, marked overdue recognition of Rustin's extraordinary contributions to the civil rights movement. On another level, Rustin's strategic vision has prophetic relevance for our time. It embodies the "audacity of hope" that we can build a deeper and more vibrant democracy.

Rustin recognized the need for pluralistic and coalition politics which could win over the great majority of Americans to the work of creating a more egalitarian society. He realized the need for building independent centers of power through community organizing.

He also anchored his strategy for change in a challenge still largely unaddressed by either political progressives or by community organizers -- a call for the democratic transformation of the social fabric itself. In contrast, today's activists have an anti-institutional bias rooted in the widespread assumption that institutions are largely impervious to change.

As Charles Euchner shows in Nobody Turn Me Round: A People's History of the 1963 March on Washington, Rustin, organizer of the 1963 March on Washington, was indispensable to creating the platform for "I Have a Dream." He was also a key strategist of many other phrases of the movement - a main actor in creating the Freedom Rides, Martin Luther King's tutor in nonviolence during the Montgomery Bus Boycott, an architect of King's Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

Rustin lived a complicated life. A Quaker, he was a conscientious objector in World War II. He was gay. He had been in the Young Communist League as a young man. As a nonviolent African-American gay former communist, Rustin was extremely controversial. Civil rights leaders kept him behind the scenes. But his accomplishments were legendary.

Rustin's question was the one familiar to community organizers, how to move from the world as it is to the world as it should be, or, put differently, how to put power behind program. As Euchner shows, Rustin was sophisticated in work with the Kennedy administration as he organized the March on Washington. He recognized the importance of being in relationship with the White House, knowing well the presidency's multiple roles in setting the nation's agenda. He also was careful not to be co-opted by the White House agenda. Rustin continually kept in mind the main task, building an independent citizen movement for ending racial discrimination, achieving greater equality, and deepening democracy.

In his view, this required that the movement's goals evolve to meet the times. In his 1965 Commentary article "From Protest to Politics," Rustin pointed out the changing tasks facing African-Americans after the end of formal, legal segregation:

"The Negro today finds himself stymied by obstacles of far greater magnitude than the legal barriers he was attacking before: automation, urban decay, de facto school segregation. These are problems which, while conditioned by Jim Crow, do not vanish upon its demise. They are more deeply rooted in our socio-economic order; they are the result of the total society's failure to meet not only the Negro's needs, but human needs generally."

Rustin worried that the movement's strategic capacity was eroding, just as its tasks were growing. Thus he questioned the growing tendency of young activists, both black and white, to substitute "posture and volume" for "effect." Militants, he argued,

"...are often described as the radicals of the movement, but they are really its moralists. They seek to change white hearts--by traumatizing them. Frequently abetted by white self-flagellants, they may gleefully applaud (though not really agreeing with) Malcolm X because, while they admit he has no program, they think he can frighten white people into doing the right thing."

He proposed a different approach -- change in the nation's very institutional structure:

"Hearts are not relevant to the issue; neither racial affinities nor racial hostilities are rooted there. It is institutions--social, political, and economic institutions--which are the ultimate molders of collective sentiments. Let these institutions be reconstructed... and let the ineluctable gradualism of history govern the formation of a new psychology."

With this argument Rustin challenged conventional wisdom on a grand scale. Though he did not develop the idea in detail, as far as I know, serious institutional reconstruction to achieve greater equality and deeper democracy necessitates not only transforming institutional racism, part and parcel of American society since European settlement. It also requires reversing what the South African public intellectual Xolela Mangcu calls "technocratic creep," the bureaucratization which is a defining feature of modern societies everywhere.

Bureaucratization involves the spread of norms and practices which replace tradition and communal values with efficiency and goal-oriented rationality. Max Weber called this culture "the polar night of icy darkness." The spreading polar night, what Weber also called the "iron cage," has long been taken as inevitable.

Today, despite widespread fatalism, there are multiplying signs that inevitable technocracy is not so. In earlier Huffington Post blogs with Blase Scarnati, John Spencer, Jason Lowry, and Jen Nelson, I described democratizing cultural change in K-12 schools, colleges and universities.

In a new series in The Boston Globe, "Trench Democracy ," Albert Dzur chronicles "democratic professionals [who] are creating power-sharing arrangements in organizations, institutions, and workplaces that are usually hierarchical and non-participatory."

Finally, "Civic Studies," a new interdisciplinary area of civic engagement, is gaining authority as a citizen-centered alternative to top-down problem solving and government-centered democracy. Its framing statement, The New Civic Politicshttp://activecitizen.tufts.edu/circle/summer-institute/summer-institute-of-civic-studies-framing-statement/, co-authored by Nobel Prize winning Elinor Ostrom and six others, stresses citizens as agents of change and co-creators of democracy. Civic Studies includes revitalizing the public work roles and practices of institutions.

All these signs help to vindicate Bayard Rustin's belief that institutional reconstruction is possible. Many years ago, he called for what Italian activists once termed "the long march through the institutions."

The march may be gaining momentum.

Boyte, who worked for the Southern Christian Leadership Conference as a college student, is Director of the Center for Democracy and Citizenship at Augsburg College and a Senior Fellow at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey School of Public Affairs. He is also one of the co-authors of The New Civic Politics.

Lessons Learned from a Statewide Gathering of NCDD Members in VA

On November 19th, Nancy Gansneder at the Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service at the University of Virginia and I teamed up to host a 3-hour gathering and knowledge exchange for Virginians working in the fields of dialogue and deliberation. The event was held at UVA in Charlottesville, VA.

Weldon Cooper Center for Public Service      National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation

We’re posting the lessons we learned here for others who might be interested in hosting their own in-person gatherings in their state.

Outcomes

The results were good: 19 in-person attendees, 26 others who registered and indicated their availability for alternate days, sufficient interest to continue hosting statewide gatherings like this every six months, and one of the participants stepped up as the next organizer (success!!). There was consensus within the group that we should request a state-based email discussion list, hosted by NCDD; Sandy is setting this up for us.

Breakout Sessions Proposed during our Meeting

20131119_134109

  • How to bring in reluctant stakeholders?
  • What is a good “hook” to interest participants in dialogues?
  • What has failed miserably?
  • How to go from dialogue & deliberation to advocacy and long term maintenance of solutions?
  • Collaborative learning in dialogue and deliberation
  • What affect do modern communications platforms have on D&D?
  • Engaging the under-engaged
  • How to work with 2 or more communities with different identities when resources are limited and a the problem/solution involves both of them
  • Getting diversity at the table
  • Creative diversity in the community
  • Hosting dialogues with open topics
  • Who does and who should pay for D&D?
  • What does success look like?
  • General logistics and planning tips
  • Forums on mental health
  • Making the case for investment in process from within a government organization

Here’s What’s Needed to Make this Happen in Your State

  • One self-starter to get the ball rolling
  • A co-organizer to bounce ideas off (you can find this person with the initial invitation email)
  • A venue that can hold the participants (20-30 people is a great turnout); universities are a great place to start looking.
  • The NCDD Member Map and Member Directory will help you know who is in your area.
  • Office supplies (name tags, sharpies, pens, scrap paper, large notepads to brainstorm breakout sessions topics, and anything else you might find useful)
  • Funds for lunch or snacks/coffee for an afternoon meeting (we coordinated with Sandy Heierbacher prior to the event to secure $250 from NCDD for lunch; alternatively, you could charge $10 or $20 or ask a local organization to sponsor)
  • Basic familiarity with Google Docs, Excel, and Eventbrite.

Pointers for Setting Up a Statewide Gathering, Step by Step

  • Two months prior to the event: Create the invitation (2 hours)
    • Copy & paste email addresses from NCDD members in your state from the member map or directory into an email, or request a member chart from your state from Joy.
    • Draft the body of the initial invitation email (use this previous example as a starting point).  The purpose is to gauge interest, to find a co-organizer that has a venue, and to receive suggestions.
    • Let NCDD know what you’re planning, and have Joy send you some NCDD postcards to hand out and perhaps other materials that are available.
  • Collect feedback from invitees when they respond via email.  Decide whether or not to go forward.  Choose 3-4 dates that work for both organizers (1 hour)
  • The organizer with the venue reserves the space (0.5 hours)
  • One month prior to the event:
    • Set up the document for the meeting notes (see this template for meeting notes that you can copy) prior to sending out the invitation. (1 hour)
    • Create the Eventbrite invitation; see this previous example (there are probably several online tools that you can use for invitations, but Eventbrite seems to be one of the best invitation tools for free events).  Be sure to create a custom multiple-choice question for invitees to indicate which of the 3-4 possible dates you are offering is best for them (in Eventbrite after you create the event, this is under “Manage” and then “Order Form” and scroll down to “Add Question”.  Example text for the question: “Which days can you attend from 11am-2pm? Please choose all that apply.”). (2 hours)
    • Announce the event on the NCDD main discussion list and/or this blog (1 hour)
    • Ask Sandy Heierbacher to forward the invitation by email to all NCDD contacts (members and others) in your state with a note of support. (0.5 hours)
  • One week prior to the event: Pre-order lunch (0.5 hours).
  • Day of the event:
    • Print out the list of attendees so you can take attendance (from Eventbrite you can download attendees in an Excel file by going to “Manage” and then “Event Reports”).
    • Show up 1-2 hours early to verify that the furniture is arranged how you want it (1.5 hours).  It was important that the tables and chairs were mobile.  During the opening plenary discussion, chairs were oriented toward the center of the room.  We moved to small-group circles when the breakout sessions began.
  • After the Event: Write up a blog post detailing what went well and what could be improved (1.5 hours).  Clean up the Excel file of attendee contact information and distribute it to the attendees (if they requested it) and send it to NCDD to help them get a sense of the energy for these regional events (1.5 hours).

General Suggestions and Lessons Learned

20131119_123603

  • Greet each individual at the door to create a welcoming environment.
  • Set ground rules for the event when it begins.  For example, “If you don’t want something in the notes, please state that it is off the record.”
  • 11am-2pm was convenient for people who had to drive a long distance.  Some drove 2.5 hours each way.
  • With a group size of 20, we had breakout groups ranging from 2-8 people in size.  We had 4 separate small-group discussions during the breakouts on 3 different topics + 1 “open topic”.
  • During the plenary session we dove right into proposing breakout session topics.  Often the group picked up the topic for a moment and people built on each other’s ideas and the framing of the problem.  We didn’t interrupt when there was energy around any particular topic.
  • Keeping everything on time was important so that people could get back on the road for their long drives.  Rather than coming up with a perfect solution for grouping the breakout topics or allowing for a full-blown open space process for selecting the breakouts (there were more than we had time to discuss), instead we told participants, “Given that you see all these topics on the board and that we want to do this as efficiently as possible, we’re going to choose topics in the following manner.  If you are moved to host a topic, stand up, announce it and move to a corner of the room.  You will be the facilitator; it’s a group discussion rather than a presentation.  We’ll choose 4 breakout sessions in this manner right now and we’ll choose a few of the ones which will take place after lunch.  If you want to propose combining two topics in a session, please make the suggestion to the person who stepped forward to facilitate that topic.” After all, the group only needs to choose 6-8 topics, so this doesn’t need to be much more complicated than this.  In a three-hour workshop, time goes quickly, and if sessions are 30 or 45 minutes each, then it’s important to minimize this “process overhead” as much as possible without causing the participants to feel rushed.  Have fun with it!!
  • Give “5 min” notice with a piece of paper so that you don’t have to verbally interrupt the groups.
  • Rather than herding everyone towards lunch at the same time, let people flow through the lunch area organically after their breakout session comes to a natural conclusion; if they keep talking and they see everyone else with lunch, they’ll get the idea that lunch is served and they’ll be able to make the call as to whether they should continue speaking or finish the conversation and eat.  Some breakout sessions might reconvene informally through lunch.
  • Folks at our event took the stairs to get lunch and brought it back downstairs to continue the meeting; this enabled the participants to mingle.  The second breakout session began while some folks were still eating/drinking; they brought their food with them, and there was no problem.
  • If the breakout sessions run longer than expected (we blocked off 30 minutes per breakout, but there was energy for 40 minutes), then be prepare to have a shorter closing plenary discussion.  We chose to have a 20 minute closing and that worked for us.  The group came to consensus quickly about the need for requesting that NCDD set up an email discussion so that we can continue to stay in touch, and everyone was happy to have the organizers release their contact information to the other participants.
  • During sessions, recommend but do not require folks to take notes during their session.  If they don’t want to write them on the doc themselves, offer to transcribe the notes for them onto the meeting notes (in our template for meeting notes, we used a Google doc that anyone can edit).
  • Be sure to thank the host and any sponsors of the event at the closing plenary.  It can’t happen without them!

Of course, these are just methods that worked for us in Virginia, and we welcome your suggestions for improvement in the comments below.

Invite others to join NCDD before Thanksgiving for 50% off

As part of our 2013 member drive, we want to encourage our existing members to invite others to join NCDD as a Supporting Member for just $25. Word-of-mouth from those of you who know NCDD is absolutely the best way to expand our reach and get more people involved — and hopefully this gives you some incentive to encourage others to become members of this great network of ours.

Table-group-600px-outlinedJust send people to www.ncdd.org/drive-join50 to complete the membership application.  The first question on the form is “Who invited you to join NCDD during the 2013 member drive,” so we can recognize those who bring in new members!

The form allows people to join at 50% off the regular (already very reasonable) membership rates. People can join as a Supporting Member for only $25 (instead of $50) or a Sustaining Member for $62.50 (instead of $125).

You may want to send out a few emails to people you think should be involved in NCDD, or maybe you’d want to post an invitation on Facebook or send an alert out to a listserv you’re active in. Here’s some suggested text you can use as you see fit…

I’d like to invite you to join a great network I’m involved in — the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation. You can join for just $25 (50% off the regular dues for Supporting Members) if you complete the membership app at www.ncdd.org/drive-join50 before Thanksgiving.

NCDD (the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation) is an active network of about 2,000 organizations and professionals in the public engagement and group process realms. We all work — in one way or another — to bring people together across divides to discuss, decide, and act together on today’s toughest challenges.

NCDD essentially serves as a gathering place, a resource center, a news source, and a facilitative leader for an active community of practice centered around the practices of dialogue and deliberation. Their online resource center is unmatched, with nearly 3,000 resources, and more than 32,000 people are subscribed to their monthly email updates. Their community is rich, responsive, and informed — their listservs, national conferences, and member “confab calls” demonstrate that.

NCDD is constantly creating opportunities for innovators in this growing field to connect with each other, learn from each other, and stay updated on what’s happening in the field. They also encourage collaboration through activities like their Catalyst Awards, and are always partnering with other leaders to help our field make a greater impact.

As a member, you’ll be among the first to hear about what’s happening in this important field. You’ll be featured on the NCDD member map and in the member directory, and you’ll be able to post to the NCDD blog, listservs and social media about your work. You’ll have access to all kinds of discounts on programs that boost your skills in engagement. And you’ll become part of a wonderfully rich, supportive, and dynamic network of people and organizations who are working to bring sanity and civility back to the way we solve public problems.

You can learn more about membership at www.ncdd.org/join, or just complete the form today at www.ncdd.org/drive-join50 to join for the $25 rate I’m extending you.

the aspiration curve from youth to old age

This is a interesting pair of graphs produced by an economist named Hannes Schwandt. Graph A shows people’s reported life satisfaction at each age (the square dots) and their expectations for how satisfied they will be five years later (open dots). Most young people expect to see dramatic improvements in the near future, whereas older people expect to be worse off after five years. But their actual (self-reported) satisfaction does not climb and then fall off in old age. Quite the contrary: it falls and then rises. Graph B shows the error in their predictions: they are substantially too optimistic until about age 50, and then too pessimistic from age 60+ (although life takes so many directions in the last decades that a few people err on the side of excessive optimism).

Schwandt thinks that the U-shaped curve in our subjective life-satisfaction results from errors in expectations. Although people of all ages hold diverse views, many young adults feel that they are not yet getting what they want from life (money, security, positive impact, love, sex, or whatever). Many expect to get all this in five years. In middle age, the same people are disappointed not to have seen their expectations met and rate themselves dissatisfied. This is the notorious Midlife Crisis. They also expect life to get worse–it won’t offer important new satisfactions or successes, but their health will decline as their years  run out. Instead, life does offer new rewards in the later decades, and so people are pleasantly surprised. Mean self-reported satisfaction is the same at age 70 as it was at age 30 (and much higher than it was at 50).

For those of us who work primarily on issues of youth, this is a challenging theory. It suggests that young people’s expectations are often so high as to cause distress later. This pattern certainly does not affect everyone. We found that before teenagers enter YouthBuild, just 30% expect even to live to old age. YouthBuild raises their hopes to the point that 90% of its graduates expect to live past 65. That is clearly a success. The U-curve may be a “first world problem,” affecting people whose teenage years have gone reasonably well. It is still a problem, however, and I have never seen an effort to address it. Maybe encourage young adults to read Stoic or classical Indian philosophy?

The post the aspiration curve from youth to old age appeared first on Peter Levine.

New Open Data Policy Passes in Oakland, CA

This interesting piece of news is cross-posted from the Gov 2.0 Watch blog run by the Davenport Institute (an NCDD organizational member). The open data movement continues to grow with this new policy in Oakland, CA created with public participation. The original post is here.

DavenportInst-logoOakland Local and the Personal Democracy Forum reported last week on the Oakland City Council’s unanimous passage of legislation adopting an Open Data Policy last Tuesday. The Local reports:

The Open Data Policy itself was drafted in a unique, open, and collaborative manner. Over the summer, [councilmember] Schaaf reached out to the Urban Strategies Council, an organization working to eliminate poverty through education, opportunity, safety, and justice. Urban Strategies organized a public roundtable and an online Google Hangout, and invited experts and interested parties from around the country to join and participate in developing the Open Data Policy.

Miranda Neubauer, writing in Techpresident at the Personal Democracy Forum, provides further details on the legislation and how it builds on ongoing efforts to make Oakland city data available for the benefit of both policy analysts and the public.

You can read more from the Local here and more from Techpresident here.

Bungeni Parliamentary and Legislative Information System

Author: 
The original version of this entry first appeared on Vitalizing Democracy in 2010 and was a contestant for the 2011 Reinhard Mohn Prize. It was originally submitted by Christian Kreutz . Bungeni aims at making Parliaments more open and accessible to citizens. Bungeni is the Kiswahili word for "inside Parliament"...

Sousveillance as a Response to Surveillance

Five years ago I wrote about the concept of “sousveillance,” which was then a budding counterpoint to surveillance. Surveillance, of course, is the practice of the powerful monitoring people under their dominion, especially people who are suspects or prisoners – or today, simply citizens.  Sousveillance -- “to watch from below” – has now taken off, fueled by an explosion of miniaturized digital technologies and the far-reaching abuses of the surveillance market/state. 

Following my earlier post on corporate espionage of activists, I figured it was an appropriate moment to revisit this topic.  As it happens, the fellow who coined the term “sousveillance,” in 1998 -- Steve Mann, a pioneer in “wearable computing” who teaches at the University of Toronto – has recently written two terrific essays on the subject.  Both were released at the IEEE [Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers] International Symposium on Technology and Society (ISTAS) in June 2013. 

Mann argues that sousveillance is an inevitable trend in technological societies and that, on balance, it “has positive survival characteristics.”  Sousveillance occurs when citizens record their encounters with police, for example. This practice exposed the outrageous police brutality against Occupy protesters (blasts of pepper spray in their faces at point-blank range) and helped transform small citizen protests against Wall Street into a global movement.

In the first of his paired essays, Mann writes:

We now live in a society in which we have both “the few watching the many” (surveillance), AND “the many watching the few” (sousveillance).  Widespread sousveillance will cause a transition from our one-sided surveillance society back to a situation akin to olden times when the sheriff could see what everyone was doing AND everyone could see what the sheriff was doing.  We name this neutral form of watching “veillance” – from the French word “veiller,” which means“to watch.”  Veillance is a broad concept that includes both surveillance (oversight) and sousveillance (undersight), as well as databeillance, uberveillance, etc.

It follows that: (1) sousveillance (undersight) is necessary to a healthy, fair and balanced society whenever surveillance (oversight) is already being used; and (2) sousveillance has numerous moral, ethical, socioeconomic, humanistic/humanitarian and practical justifications that will guarantee its widespread adoption, despite opposing sociopolitical forces.

(This passage is from “Veillance and Reciprocal Transparency:  Surveillance versus Sousveillance, AR Glass, Lifeglogging and Wearable Computing,” available as a pdf download here. A companion essay, “The Inevitability of the Transition from a Surveillance-Society to a Veillance-Society:  Moral and Economic Grounding for Sousveillance,” can be found here.

read more

The Center for Public Integrity

(St Louis) The traditional model of paying reporters by selling subscriptions and advertisements is broken. John W. Henry paid $70 million for the Boston Globe and the Worcester Telegram & Gazette, less than the $110 million he pays Justin Pedroia of the Red Sox (which he also owns). When one second baseman is worth more than two newspapers, you know the news business is in trouble. Yet information about public issues is a public good, and the people who collect it have to be paid and supported, or we will be an ignorant and manipulable electorate.

Yesterday, in DC, I got a chance to visit the newsroom of the Center for Public Integrity. It is a full-scale news operation with a whole staff of seasoned reporters. The newsroom is quieter than most because CPI’s reporters do more number-crunching than traditional newspaper journalists do and spend less time calling people for quotes. Their business model also differs from that of traditional newspapers, in that CPI raises grants and donations for investigative journalism and then gives away the results. You can read CPI’s stories on their own website, but a lot more people read them as syndicated items in other publications or come across their findings in other reporters’ work.

This is the emerging nonprofit model for journalism in the public interest.

The post The Center for Public Integrity appeared first on Peter Levine.

Announcing the New Journal of Dialogue Studies

JDS_bigWe were pleased to learn recently about the creation of the Journal of Dialogue Studies, a brand new academic publication dedicated to the theory and practice of dialogue. The JDS will be published by the Institute for Dialogue Studies, which is the academic platform of England’s Dialogue Society.

For us non-academics, this journal presents a great opportunity to engage on a deeper level with dialogue theory. For you NCDD members who are doing scholarly work on dialogue to reach a broader audience with your work. We highly encourage you to consider submitting your work to the Journal of Dialogue Studies by emailing your paper to journal@dialoguesociety.org. You can find more information on submissions here.

To understand a bit more about the new journal, check out the overview provided by its creators:

The Journal of Dialogue Studies is a multidisciplinary, peer-reviewed academic journal published twice a year. Its aim is to study the theory and practice of dialogue, understood provisionally as: meaningful interaction and exchange between people (often of different social, cultural, political, religious or professional groups) who come together through various kinds of conversations or activities with a view to increased understanding. The Editors welcome vigorous discussion of this provisional description, of dialogue’s effectiveness as a means of increasing understanding, and of other fundamental questions. The Journal brings together a body of original scholarship on the theory and practice of dialogue that can be critically appraised and debated. It publishes conceptual, research, and/or case-based works on both theory and practice, and papers that discuss wider social, cultural or political issues as these relate to the evaluation of dialogue. In this way, the Journal aims to contribute towards establishing ‘dialogue studies’ as a distinct academic field (or perhaps even emerging discipline).

The new journal will be published twice a year, and the first issue is already available online, and is focused on questions such as:

  • What arguments might there be for (or against) developing ‘dialogue studies’ as a distinct academic field (or perhaps even emerging discipline)?
  • What are the implications of doing so?
  • How might ‘dialogue studies’ be of use to academics, policy-makers and practitioners?
  • What do we mean by dialogue, dialogue theories and dialogue practices?
  • Where along the spectrum of fields is this field best placed?

We are encouraged to see the dialogue field continue to grow and deepen, and will definitely be keeping an eye on this new publication.

You can find out more about the Journal of Dialogue Studies by visiting www.dialoguesociety.org/publications/academia/829-journal-of-dialogue-studies.html.