In her new book, Momentum, Allison Fine suggests that we are entering a "connected age" where American citizens are using emerging social media to engage in activism more substantially than ever before. Her book is one of a number of recent attempts at putting the Dean campaign, blogging, MoveOn, and Democracy for America into a broader context.
I want to be a believer, I really do. But passages like "we have the ability to make participation possible for a breathtakingly large number of people leave me wondering about the when, how, and why of participation. By way of illustration, consider the Sierra Student Coalition's National Leadership Council
The NLC as an idea had been around for a long, long time. I joined the SSC's executive committee (an annually elected decision-making body) in 1997 and received a long memo in the mail from Colin Wellencamp, an outgoing excom member. It was a simple enough proposal: rather than concentrating power in this seven-member body, we should throw the doors and windows open to all of our local groups. Bring them together once a year for a big conference! Have speakers and trainings! Let them discuss, deliberate, and decide the future of the organization! Belief in grassroots empowerment was something of a precursor to SSC leadership, so everyone loved the idea. But we also had basically no money, so it went on the shelf and remained there for years.
At our January, 2000 winter gathering, Nathan Wyeth proved once again that he was smarter than the rest of us by proposing a simple solution: the excessive price tag was because we couldn't afford to pay for so many plane tickets. Otherwise, we already had an annual summer gathering, so the cost increases would be marginal. What if we just invite everyone, have them pay their own way, and see what happens? The executive committee jumped at this opportunity to become more open and inclusive, and the grassroots council was born.
It lasted a little over a year. The first meeting was exciting, and had hints of potential, but no one really had much to talk about. During the second meeting, the group voted to disband. It turned out that the organization was open enough for our grassroots already. The excom loved the notion of broad decision-making. But most of our decisions weren't all that interesting, and the grassroots essentially said "thanks, but no thanks."
This leads back to my skepticism about the "connected age." Not to take anything away from the Dean campaign, DFA, or others -- I have been truly impressed -- but how far-ranging is this revolution really going to be? If the American people really have been waiting around for the opportunity to be heard, we may be on the verge of something tremendous. But most Americans aren't interested in politics or activism. And amongst those who are, many are looking for something simple and rewarding to do. The Sierra Club for years has tried to bring in activists by giving them a voice and a leadership position. We've seen much greater success in the places where we've instead said, "here's a phone script and a list of names to call, we really appreciate your help."
Social media are changing the way we interact. They allow anyone with a keyboard and an opinion to find their voice, and that has revolutionary potential. But the best organizing, I believe, will come not from the organizations that throw themselves fully into the open-source revolution, but from the organizations that actively encourage open participation in the places where people want to participate. This finer point seems to be lacking from the first wave of books on the subject. Let's not assume that the masses have been waiting to be let in. Let's instead think about who participates, how, when, why, and what we can do to make this participation broader, deeper, and more meaningful.