[Note: Blog posts are an ongoing series where EEMA members explore their personal views and experiences relating to issues of development and community organizing. While the general spirit of the postings may reflect the opinions and work of EEMA the views expressed have not been reviewed or agreed to by the group as a whole.]
One of my goals in working with East End Mutual Aid is strategizing on ways to break out of the binary thinking often used to implement policies that go against community interests.
Perhaps the best example of this kind of thinking is found whenever we are faced with yet another “crisis.” These seeming emergencies that spring up again and again are the usual method of imposing regressive policing, taxation, privatization, union busting, unjust development practices, government intrusion of personal freedom and autonomy. This means powerful interests act in ways that create a crisis in society, producing fear in the population while simultaneously offering only one “realistic” way to deal with the problem. A panic is created and the stage is set for acquiescence to a decision that otherwise would have met widespread opposition. In the place of thoughtful dialogues and consideration of competing alternatives we go from crisis to crisis.
Our first step must always be to fight the battle of the story over what the problem is and what the possible solutions are. If a community dialogue about responses to anti-social crime becomes simply a question of “do we want more police or less” then those of us who are critical about the role of police in society have already lost. Anyone arguing against more police comes across as naively dismissing “the way the world works” and disregarding the concerns of those most vulnerable to, or impacted by, acts of personal violence.
While better articulation of alternative ways to view the problem helps create space, it is not enough. The binary thinking also exists as a result of what people see in practice. When anti-social crime flourishes people may hear a lot of different arguments about what should be done, but what they see happening are usually either things stay the same, or things change for good and bad, with the implementation of more police/harsher laws/policies of displacement.
A true general shift in how broad communities view possible problem solving is likely to occur only when our actions go beyond offering a clear alternative to actually attempting to implement one from below. That implementation will sometimes be simply creation of an alternative; sometimes it will mean taking active steps to confront those unjustly gaining at others’ expense.
For example, in most tenant-landlord relationships, we see the extreme power-imbalances that open the door to exploitative financial relationships. The number of people who don’t get their security deposit back, who live in unsafe conditions, who don’t get repairs done in a timely manner, is all an outrage.
Just in terms of the security deposit, that $400-800 can mean a lot to a working person. Right now, many people don’t get the money back and they see their only option as spending a lot of time and resolve to go through the discomfort of pursuing the issue through the court system. That is really intimidating, especially when you go through it alone.
Collective action, solidarity among people, can address these situations by distributing the work, stress and risk of agitating for what one is entitled to. It is in individuals (and the larger community’s) self-interest to create disincentives for landlords that try to take advantage of renters. We can do this through organizing and creating public pressure. A good example of such a project would be the Seattle Solidarity Network.
A couple high profile cases would help create a more equalized power relationship. We should always be working to create a culture where doing the right thing is the easiest thing for all involved.
I think that same kind of thinking can be extended to solving other problems. I get really frustrated walking by the check cashing joints along Liberty Avenue each day, because these places essentially steal money from the poor through outrageous interest rates and fees. Far from solving individual’s problems they create cycles of poverty.
Education is always important, but we have to recognize that we’re dealing with systemic problems in need of new solutions.
Without strong family and community networks people who are already living precariously feel like they have no choice but to turn to whatever lenders there are. This is especially true within communities that historically lack access to capital and assets. Clearly helping people to meet their social and economic needs is a part of challenging the conditions that give rise to these lending practices.
In a less abstract analysis, the presence of two payday lenders on Liberty is good indication of the need for short term lenders outside of the existent banking system. How can our community address this issue in a bottom-up way that helps the financially vulnerable?
I hope I don’t come across as believing social problems are simple to solve. It is going to take time, effort and a great amount of consistency to show results. It is the results themselves that do the actual convincing. My hope is in the short term a group like East End Mutual Aid can throw out some ideas and new ways of approaching problems and in the longer term maybe actually work towards creating those alternatives.
I like what these folks are doing on the North Side.
http://www.graceperiod.org/