Personal Reaction
The description of some of Alinsky's more colorful tactics, including the idea for a "shit-in" at O'Hare disgusted me. Though I found the proposal intelligent and creative, I immediately classified such techniques as crude and vulgar. That Alinksy later warns potential radicals that the middle class has an "aversion to rudeness, vulgarity, and conflict" is proof of the continued relevance of his work. The book, however, is not perfectly relevant. The language of the radicals in Alinsky's book - the suburban habitant is referred to as a "square" - seems so dated as to be unreal to the modern college reader, and there are many references to Vietnam and other topics which are now consigned to the staid atmosphere of the history classroom. In contrast, Alinsky's argument about the need for radicals is timeless. His statement on the first page of the book that "evolution is merely the term used by non-participants to denote a particular sequence of revolutions as they synthesized into a specific major social change" complements his statement that "the most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means." Though American history reveals a trend of increasing freedoms for its oppressed peoples, the American people have always had political "radicals" acting to change the status quo. Alinsky uses his own recommended method of "with us or against us" reasoning to argue that those who are not activists stand against the ideals of justice, equality, and opportunity. Despite being a member of that prudish middle class, I believe him. If Alinsky's argument was ineffective in convincing me that his methods were appropriate, he was utterly effective in reminding me that one should not be a mere audience member in the political process.
1 comment:
I wanted to respond to your point regarding the relevancy of Alinsky. It is inevitable that over time events will sink into history and slang will evolve. However, these trends do not attack the relevancy of the work. His book is not a historical text dedicated to case studies of his successes. Instead, he uses the events of his era as examples, to make his generalizable principles clear. It is these principles that are important, not the events. As long as the examples don't become a barrier to accessibility and explain his points they serve their exemplary purpose.
When he writes "He [the radical] will know that a "square" is no longer to be dismissed as such-instead, his own approach must be "square" enough to get action started." It is the point regarding a willingness to partially conform one's approach to the system is necessary for success that matters, not the semantics by which he conveys it. You could replace "square" with some more contemporary synonym, but the message would be the same.
Although the comparison might lean towards melodrama, I don't think that Rules for Radicals lacks relevancy any more than Sun Tzu's The Art of War. They address basic questions that have universal applicability. As long as economic inequalities create a class division, Alinsky's work will retain relevancy.
Post a Comment