organizing people creates capital, but no place to spend it

posted in edumication, sysadmin by Alec on March 17th, 2008 :

a problem

Reform efforts exist on a spectrum spanning two extremes. One extreme feels that reform can only start outside the ailing institution. The other extreme thinks that only by working within the system can we change it. Unsurprisingly, the answer usually lies between the two extremes. Those who think that outside reform is the only possibility think the existing infrastructure offers no hope, that the system is beyond repair. These reformers feel disenchanted with and disenfranchised from the channels that are intended to address their calls for change. These channels typically include the judicial and legal resources nominally available, as well as the organization within the object of reform itself (i.e. the mythical complaint department and its relatives). Unfortunately, those dedicated to working solely from within [the system] are often also disempowered, being sabotaged by their misplaced trust of the creaky institutions “outside” reformers eschew.

Given that the sweet spot of empowerment is somewhere in between refusing to participate and being co-opted by the existing infrastructure, it is unfortunate that the methods of education reform are so polarized. In relying on existing infrastructures, “insider” efforts are intrinsically self-documenting, but stagnate quickly. For this same reason, “outsider” efforts are intrinsically incomplete and poorly documented, which is a shame, since they are often more dynamic, but less influential.

a linchpin

Both approaches to reform seek to empower collective action. Insiders point collective action at our governing institutions, outsiders seek to empower collective action to create alternative institutions. It is a truism that grassroots efforts are desirable, robust, and effective. Despite this, Barack Obama’s netroots campaign has captured a great deal of attention for its success. The success of Obama’s campaign is due in part to his ability to create emotional and social capital among voters. But I think the piece missing historically has been a good understanding of the profile of scales involved. By this I mean the character of the organization of power and action within an effort. While it’s clear that we’re looking to differentiate between top-down and bottom-up organization, this vocabulary ends up being incomplete.

Consider the United States government: we have multiple scales (federal, state, and municipal), and at each of these, there is a strongly hierarchical bureaucracy in place. What we’re really talking about are the scales at which structure exists, and then the type of structure in place at these scales.

My involvement with the Center for the Future of Civic via MAS.712 has shown me a number of projects aiming to empower people in civic contexts by creating tools intended to facilitate collective action and communication. Historically, I’ve found efforts that focus on raising awareness or fervor around an issue underwhelming. Typically, they fail to mobilize the emotional and social capital they create. For many reform movements, this means that their primary functionality is promoting socialization and bringing like-minded people together: a function that falls frustratingly short of the promise (and often, self-stated mission) of these organizations.

Reform efforts frequently couch themselves one-dimensionally, in opposition to the status quo, failing to offer — and make central — the positive, alternative they propose.¹ An unfortunate consequence of this habit is the marginalization and isolation of the reform effort. The more serious this mistake, the less permeable the line between the reformers and everyone else, meaning the reform efforts are more likely to be seen as extremist.

To oversimplify: successful reform efforts focus on the problem, not the problem-solvers. This is not to say that the problem should be the focus to the exclusion of the problem solvers, but reform efforts emasculate their efforts by hyperfocusing on the group’s identity. When everyone is working on a problem, the primary function of a reform effort is not social[ization]. When a reform falters, taking longer and occurring slower than expected, reformers understandably band together, seeing themselves as a cohesive (and unfortunately, separate) social unit. Integrating opposition into your identity encodes at a very low level the assumptions your group makes. Reform efforts set themselves up for failure by taking for granted an adversarial rather than cooperative process.

a recipe

Thus we seek to bestir the people into an awareness of their own condition, provide inspiration for their thoughts and rouse them to pursue their true interests.

So ends the principles of the Knight Foundation. It’s an exciting, articulate sentiment that directs our attention to the raw materials of change: awareness and motivation.

Many projects aiming to empower a population first focus on bringing those involved together, facilitating communication, and enabling the group to make their needs and desires heard in a cohesive way. Given that we can “rouse them to pursue their true interests,” how do we capitalize on that? This is a question reforms rarely answer. Bringing people together gives you access to social, emotional, technological, and even fiscal capital. But how do you transform that into meaningful action? While grassroots efforts are made robust by the power of decentralized systems, the problem of coupling that to action is difficult. Essentially, we’re looking to design leadership into an effort, from the ground up. The concerns raised by the types of infrastructure in place at various scales is difficult and poorly addressed.

I have no general answer for this question. Even the direction to proceed is unclear. But going back to the specific case of education makes clear that this framework makes some progress.

a guess hope

a friend of mine runs summer camp which will be in its third year this summer. Parents and kids love it.

Camp Kaleidoscope, a summer day camp in Somerville for 6-12 year olds, will be running this summer for its third year! At Camp Kaleidoscope we build kites, launch rockets, make video games, paint pictures, control robots, and do whatever else seems like a good idea.

Essentially, Camp Kaleidoscope is a hands-on instantiation of a free-school for two months. This same friend is looking to start a creative, hands-on school for kids this fall. Whereas parents beat a path to his door to enroll their kids in camp, finding parents willing to employ the same pedagogy during the school year are few and far between. Parents have a prudential interest in their children’s future, meaning that they see school as a serious endeavor (in contradistinction to summer camp).

We see a diluted analogy to this in the progression of pedagogical flexibility from pre-school to high school. Unfortunately, this makes extending pedagogy shown to be successful in the primary grades an uphill battle. But, I had fingered the relative ease of experimentation as the cause of primary school’s comparative progressivism.

It wasn’t until recently, when reading Scott Nearing’s The New Education that I came across a historical explanation for this, as well. The early 20th century was a time wherein many students (particularly among poor and rural neighborhoods) did not finish middle school. Progressives decided that if they were to be reached by the edifying hand of the Movement, this must be done in primary school.

Setting history aside, what lesson do these observations suggest about the nature of successful reform? How do we design an educational revolution?

a guess

What if a university were to plunge students into real world pursuits? What if students were innovators and inventors who were learning core skills and knowledge on the fly, as they solve real world problems? What if this school were revolutionary in a host of ways which did not threaten the conventionally prudential value of the education? I’m betting that the vision of high school students taking on world-class research and design problems is not only possible, but the closest thing to a positive defense available to pedagogies implemented within the traditional schooling framework.

I’m guessing that the successes of students at this university will endorse our pedagogy strongly enough to catch people’s attention. This attention would lubricate dealings with the traditional educational infrastructure, and the model and design of the university itself would be scalable and easily decentralizable, giving grassroots support a natural, actionable outlet: making your own [university]!

The fundamental tension between top-down and bottom-up reform efforts comes from the fact that the institutions involved in each approach are coupled by design. Our government is designed to serve our needs and desires. Unfortunately, we are afforded a tiny sliver of experimental leeway to explore how we want to solve the problem of education, meaning we end up with poorly articulated — and worse, wrong — “desires” because we haven’t had the time and space to iterate. My hope is that a single, educational institution will be able to not only capture the ear of the traditional infrastructure, but provide people with a blueprint for changing education at its most flexible point by anticipating the excuses people usually use to exclude evidence (dissimilar demographics, financial situation, etc.)

a rain check

I’m sure my rambling has made it clear by now: I’m struggling with the framework and vocabulary with which I want to discuss and design this reform effort. Everything feels sloppy, still. Nonetheless, I believe that there is a fundamental structure to reform, and I think that we can take advantage of this for real change. However, I am dubious of my tendency to abstract and generalize. I’m wary of hidden assumptions and this convoluted discussion. So please, push back and help me refine these ideas.

Worse, they often lack a sufficiently concrete, positive, alternative vision. Even if the status quo were to do an about-face and give reform groups the reins, many would not be prepared to take action [↩]

one response to 'organizing people creates capital, but no place to spend it'

subscribe to comments with RSS or TrackBack to 'organizing people creates capital, but no place to spend it'.

Christopher Bisignani said, on April 1st, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Ok, I said I’d respond so here it is.

These questions have been on my mind for quite a while now (the past 6 months) - how do we reform? How do we bootstrap?

One of my main worries in attempting serious (so-called “destructive”) reform is that the system will necessarily try to protect itself - regardless of whether the reform comes from the inside or out. One way to protect yourself against its attacks is to have some credibility (so that people will know of the attacks on you and it will give you more credibility). Without such a shield, I view reform as relatively dangerous.

“Reform efforts frequently couch themselves one-dimensionally, in opposition to the status quo, failing to offer — and make central — the positive, alternative they propose.”

God, I feel like I could write an entire book on this. Too bad no one would read it and it would take forever to write.

I note that there is a general lack of creativity in many reform movements. They seek to eliminate a culture - but what is to take its place?

For instance, I think that vegetarianism as a movement underestimates the extent to which meat has social and cultural significance. I’ll leave it at that because I’m sure you can see what I’m getting at.

I think that one of the main failings of many reform movements is - as you say - their tendency to define themselves as a reaction to a dominant culture/structure without creating their own new set of symbols/cultural forms.

Ron Paul actually acts as an interesting example of a “good attempt” - an attempt that was beaten largely because of its scale (I think if he had aimed for something less difficult than President he could have had a much more significant impact). The culture and symbols were in place - and they had a long tradition behind them.

The “hollowness” of a reform is important, in this way.

I strongly - strongly - agree that reform efforts will do best to concentrate on cooperation/good-natured information.

Christian reformers (besides being violent) were classically very successful because their participants took much of their personal time to become part of a community, learn their symbols, and integrate christian faith. It’s not enough to just have a powerful message - you have to SHOW people who this powerful message relates to their lives/culture in a very personal and experiential way.

Contrast this with so-called “Paulites” who are ridiculously confrontational/exclusive. Look how successful they were. What a waste.

“How do we design an educational revolution?”

This question makes me somewhat wary and I’ll tell you why.

Obviously you’re aware of the differences in methods/difficulties associated with top-down vs. bottom-up design. You speak about how “something in the middle is preferable.”

Is the real aim to -design a revolution?- I guess I’d like some clarification here. What is your -real and specific aim?- This is a question I haven’t really seen you answer (or if you have, I’m not aware of it).

The reason that I am wary is that this sort of expression - “I want to create an education revolution” - expresses a sort of distance from you. This is subtle, but important. It creates a monolithic desire. It expresses one standard by which a movement created by it can be judged; is it revolutionary?

I believe that to create a good revolution is not to express and attempt to forward such a monolithic goal. Instead, as I alluded to above, I think what’s really important is creating a whole structure of desires/symbols/etc. which inter-relate and also relate to things external. This is the creation of a cultural entity.

Such cultural entities are difficult to engineer (and I’m not sure that anyone has even tried) but I think they’re vastly more successful to succeed (they’re the form that most unspoken revolutions take - when a ton of symbols/emotional context are created spontaneously and simultaneously by widespread conditions).

Man, this is extremely abstract, but also kind of an exciting idea.

So instead of asking “how do we start an educational revolution?” let’s ask “how do we create a self-reproducing cultural entity whose result will be consistent with a well-defined set of principals?”

This is a “constitutional approach,” I guess.

There is an obvious problem with your idea for a university - which is that it’s really risky. You’re pinning its success to its research success (which might not be related/relatable to its success in other ways that you “actually” want).

I think that something you should not underestimate is the power of symbols. Calling something a “university” makes the problem extraordinarily complex because you’re dragging in like a thousand years of tradition. People will not only have to grapple with the nuance of what you’re doing - but will necessarily view it in terms of its difference with traditional structures.

Eh, I don’t know. So hard! I feel like I have tons of ideas about this, but I’m having trouble tying them together into a coherent thrust.

I’m just going to throw out a few ideas that this post inspires in me.

First of all, I think that you should think about these questions in terms of the language of “common knowledge.”

I think that a reform has power in proportion not only to its immediate appeal, but in proportion to n-th order appeal. Namely, how does a person perceive this idea as appealing to others?

An idea is not just powerful if one person likes it, it’s powerful if that person also imagines everyone else liking it. Powerful forms like national media and highly-read bloggers are able to create this common knowledge (or similarly destroy it), but it is also an innate property of an idea (at least w/r/t the cultural context it is defined in terms of).

An obvious consequence of this thinking is that ideas that are “too radical” (even if everyone individually likes them) are going to meet social resistance.

An interesting characterization of radicalness is that it is in some sense a measure of the dot-product of the idea w/r/t pertinent social vectors. Hehe. What I mean is that an idea that is radically different (in a sense) but also orthogonal to cultural norms (expressible in terms of a new set of symbols, for instance) will not cause as much of an immediately negative reaction. Oh my god this is so abstract.

I’ll give you an example to tie it in to experience, though. My argument against a lot of Christians is something to the effect of “What is your definition of god?”

This is an “orthogonal question” because it is not expressible in terms of commonly known elements of the space of religious discourse. Thus, reactions to it aren’t as negative as reactions to blatantly atheistic rhetoric (“why do you believe in god?”).

Similarly an “orthogonal reform” would be one like…say, the atkin’s diet. It was sufficiently new and strange that it was able to accumulate cultural capital before growing a strong negatively reactive base.

To summarize, orthogonality is a powerful tool for creating common knowledge - without it an idea is straining against well-defined and powerful cultural forms (on every scale).

Another idea is love. It’s strange, I know, but the proof is in the pudding (c.f. Ghandi).

I think that it is important to have an overwhelmingly positive message phrased in terms of some “universal set of human symbols.”

All too often reform efforts get caught up in the technical and therefore miss out on important meta-conversation/meta-action (iteration) and miss out on very important abstractions (creation of new symbols). The Paulites just argued political theory - there are SO MANY other ways they could have phrased their arguments. There are so many things they could have created. But most importantly, they could have couched their message in a rhetoric of hope and promises of “good.”

There’s a more subtle reason such an approach is important. People don’t like to be reduced/essentialized. Creating a culture of tolerance (even of really vociferous opponents) around a political movement is extremely important. After all, even our enemies are people - if we’re going to change the world to be better, we want it to be better for them too.

Metaphorically, I think that this positive emotion - this hope - this compassion is really the heart of any movement. Jockeying for power - looking for change for change’s sake - these sorts of movements are going to die out or attract the “wrong crowd.” Nothing good can come of them.

Of course, the question of how to create positive emotion within a movement is orthogonal to the movement itself - which means that it’s hard to iterate. (Principal: orthogonal iteration is hard!)

Anyway, that’s enough for now. Thanks for this post. Really thought provoking. Also, this is what I’ve been thinking about a LOT recently (I’m really trying to figure out how people consume political information and how disturbances in that information can change people’s outlook, etc.) I’ll have more to say…sometime.

I didn’t proof read this, so ask for clarification if I stated some things strangely or if it’s too abstract at points.

I would actually be very interested in co-authoring a paper on the nature of modern political participation/reform with you and trying to get it published/read. I think that a meta-analysis of this sort of thing is EXTREMELY important right now.

I worry that my own lack of real knowledge of political reforms might render my opinion hopelessly naive. However, the space of possible reforms is so vast that perhaps lack of attachment would give me some useful perspective. I don’t know how much experience you have with political participation. I’d like to hear about any you’ve had.

stimulant

changing things around. . .