Stout defines what internal organizing is aimed at in two objectives:
"The first is to get people within a given institution talking with each other about their concerns. In the case of a church this would mean hundreds of individual conversations and small gatherings -- called 'one-on-ones' and 'house meetings,' respectively -- among church members. The second objective is to identify and cultivate leaders from within. These leaders represent their institutions in the citizens' organization and in the broader forum of public discussion" (2).
These objectives seem to echo what De Tocqueville thought the purpose of voluntary associations were. Small gatherings and leaders should emerge from organizations in order to better society. Stout emphasizes that each organization needs organization (in order to function well)! Could it possibly be that the absence of leaders within these organizations is what has contributed to Putnam's claim that social capital has declined? Leaders can help bring all issues to attention instead of just one. Stout writes, "Broad-based organizing differs from social movement organizing in that it does not restrict itself to a single issue and instead takes up different issues over time in response to concerns expressed by citizens" (8). Organization within an association is key to the continuing functionality of that group. Without organization, issues do not get resolved and the purpose of the group is lost. Perhaps lack of organization is one of the roots of the diminished social capital we have today.
Steph,
ReplyDeleteYou are on-track here. I"d only add that the sorts of broad-based community organizing Stout writes about usually has an action agenda, while Putnam also includes community groups which might have other primary purposes such as sports leagues or musical organizations. These can form the basis of the more politically focus of the groups Stout studies in his other chapters.
LDL