![]() Rather, she is extolling the value of involving workers themselves in this analytical work. But McAlevey isn’t just saying that workers have power. McAlevey certainly isn’t the first to realise that workers have power because elites depend upon their cooperation - in Gandhi as a Political Strategist, Gene Sharp points out that “hierarchical systems can be modified or destroyed by a withdrawal of submission, cooperation, and obedience”, and similar ideas are in Daniel Hunter’s Strategy and Soul or the teachings of Marshall Ganz. It will also, most importantly, involve workers in understanding “their contribution to the interdependent power equation” and the leverage that this gives them in any fight. This power that people have is partly about resources like their community networks, but is fundamentally about the ability of workers to “withdraw their cooperation” and “sustain massive disruptions to the existing order.” An effective power analysis, then, will not only reveal situation-specific resources that workers may have. Worker ownership of the power analysis is crucial, because it allows workers to understand their own power: “people transition…to serious and highly invested actors exercising agency when they come to see, to understand, and to value the power of their own salient knowledge and networks.” ![]() McAlevey just loves it when workers undertake a power-structure analysis. Instead, they are the campaign: “They are essential and they know it.”īut what are the implications of this theory of power for how we organise? There is power in a union Rather, “the primary goal is to transfer power from the elite to the majority.” This transfer of power is achieved not only through the goals of the organiser (such as the right to form a union), but through their methods themselves - “Ordinary people help make the power analysis, design the strategy, and achieve the outcome.” In this model, ordinary people aren’t a tool to be wielded by staff. Organising doesn’t aim to persuade corporate elites to make concessions. Hence, the fundamental difference with organising is its theory of power - that “the very idea of who holds power is itself contestable”. #Shortcat jane professional#The mobilization is controlled by professional staffers who “see themselves, not ordinary people, as the key agents of change.” So, like advocacy, mobilizing can win change, but it doesn’t change power structures because ordinary people don’t have significant agency. In this sense, while advocacy can win change from powerholders, it “doesn’t involve ordinary people in any real way” and “severely limits serious challenges to elite power.” While mobilizing is an improvement, because it “brings large numbers of people to the fight”, these people aren’t transformed - they “aren’t informed about or the resulting strategy”. Instead, it must operate within the existing power paradigm to try to gain influence. In this elite view, the movement/ the working class, doesn’t have meaningful power. McAlevey argues that both the advocacy and mobilising models depend upon an “elite theory of power”. What is novel in McAlevey’s approach is her inclusion of the idea of “theory of power”. No Shortcuts opens with a discussion of different approaches to change: advocacy, mobilising, and organising. It seems that in the 21st century one can’t write an organising book without comparing organising and mobilising, and McAlevey clearly got the memo. Organising is the targeted transfer of power The idea of working with “organic leaders” rather than activists.Įach of these themes on its own has something to offer the reader combined, they underpin McAlevey’s particular worldview and preferred approach to making change.The importance of involving workers in power analysis and. ![]() ![]() ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |