TW: . . .
What I was getting at is that participation was used to evoke organic
democracy even as it implemented functional compliance.
[mbs] My understanding is that 'compliance' is not what community
action was about. To the contrary, the notion of participation
created some freedom of action within the program that proved
to be its possibly inevitable undoing. This should not surprize
anyone who can appreciate the insurgent potential in mobilized
poor people. More specifically, the logic of participation and
the program's resources helped the poor to mobilize against
their oppressors in local government. Moynihan's point is the
failure to clarify what participation should mean allowed the
program to sufficiently offend Dem politicians and pave the way
for its dissolution. In this book, DM is not particularly hostile
to either political mobilization nor the more pedestrian function
of the programs as a center for job training, adult educ., etc.
He does take note of communist or radical involvement, of which
he disapproves, but takes some pains to note that such involvement
was somewhere between non-existent and trivial, and no real
justification for killing the program.
In the book, you can see the beginnings of DM's sociological
critique of the War on Poverty, in the form of his fixation on
pathological explanations of poverty. But this view does not
appear to dominate his account of the WoP.
>>>>>> . . .
Militant posturing and gangsta' attitude can easily be assimilated under the
broad rubric of participation, "Gee, Officer Krupke, Krup you!" becomes Fuck
tha police without much imagination.
>>>>>>
DM's point is that in fact it could not. Mainstream
politicians would not sit still for any govt association
with such postures. If we were referring solely to a
local context where a semi-liberal establishment had
routine means to coopt radical opposition, the point
is well-taken. But under the scrutiny of a broader
political spectrum, any such image is too useful --
as whipping boy -- to pass up.
One could read into the history of the WoP the likely
failure of any effort to grow insurgency, hothouse-style,
with government or non-profit resources.
I would say the great coopt-er in the fashion you suggest
these days is not any government or foundation program but
the Culture. Culture adulterates to the point of destruction
every profound idea or gripping image. Everything is
domesticated. Kathi Lee is leading the fight against
sweatshops. On my local news, Malcolm X is referred
to as a civil rights leader, and you can buy a poster of
him at the U.S. Post Office. Or some nit will sing John
Lennon's "Imagine" and change the words. I may move
into Ted K.'s cabin.
mbs
