I really appreciated the multiple angles I got on different ways of doing community organising from the readings. In my experience all I had seen as community organising would fall under CBO-type organisations; such as those that form in informal settlements threatened with eviction or campaigning for service provision.
What struck me most was the discussion on how different entities within the groups related to each other and the outcome this had on the overall group dynamics, sustainability, and perhaps even success. The roles of ‘organiser’, ‘leader’, and ‘member’ as starkly out were new to me as I had assumed in the CBOs that I have come across that there is all-round commitment but upon reflection I see that there were often roles that different people played. I wonder about where each of these people is sourced from however and the effect that has on the organisation. Does an organiser have to be an ‘outsider’ and if they are, what ensures that they are committed to the community ‘being organised (for)’?
The concept of organising someone else or organising for them (sounds very patronising, I know…) takes me back to our first discussion on what we define as community. And perhaps how each of us defines community could challenge the ‘insider’-‘outsider’ dichotomy. I especially like the idea that someone brought up in class- of working oneself out of a job. In which case I wonder what community organisers seen to be outside of a community can incorporate in their methods (capacity building?) to ensure that ultimately a community’s power stays in the community. Are there any ethical considerations for when ‘organisers’ remain in those positions forever? I also wonder about situations where ‘leaders’ cycle in an organisation and former ‘leaders’ become ‘members’ and dealing with those dynamics- supporting an egalitarian organising ethic perhaps?
I also really appreciated the piece on public narrative and stories. The author did a good job of showing why each of the three narratives (story of self, story of us and story of now) he singled out was important. Even though he addressed the challenge of not wanting to broadcast one’s own narrative, (by insisting on how crucial it is for people to develop emotional connections to us and to develop truer narratives of us for themselves) I am challenged by cases where speaking about oneself is not the norm. In which case, having shown that narrative is so important in organising, I wonder if there are other ways to tell one’s story without necessarily using words, or without carving a space for ‘my story’ where to do so would be looked down upon; or where one is otherwise uncomfortable telling their story.
Wangui.