Social Justice and Deep Participation

Theory and Practice for the 21st Century

Paula Donnelly Roark, Paula Donnelly Roark

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9781137436863
• eBook ISBN: 9781137436870
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Development Economics
• Index: Social Sciences

Knowing what deep participation is, and how it works, can make a critical difference in solving 21st century economic, political, and social problems. This book provides a new approach to hands-on change and begins formulation of a participatory social theory promising greater prosperity and justice for all.

Part I

Rethinking Participation and Social Change

1

Background and Overview: Everybody Counts or Nobody Counts

Deep participation dynamics are complex and interactive with numerous factors of life and power. It is tempting to try to simplify their explanation; however, if we do so, we are left with an elegant definition that may sound good but is still insufficient. So, in this chapter we will allow the overlapping messiness and complexity to show itself, but at the same time define a map and path for our exploration of deep participation and social integrative power that acknowledges the complexity while still defining a succinct and useful way forward.

First, I will identify the following three background factors that are basic to understanding deep participation: (1) a fast primer on social change; (2) a brief discussion of the difficult and escalating interactions between global poverty, the global environment, and global violence; and (3) identification of the link between deep participation, legitimacy, and social change. Knowledge of these three context areas puts us all at the discussion starting line. With this background, we can begin to explore three critical overview issues: (1) how deep participation works; (2) why it is important; and (3) how recognizing connectedness and complex mutuality expands our analysis.

Sometimes it also helps to think about the final destination. One obvious final objective is to improve and better sustain 21st-century social movements. But there are unexpected obstacles in the way of this possibility. Two of the biggest are our limited definition of power and our resulting attitudes toward altruism and compassion. In terms of power, we either doubt social integrative power or have not even contemplated its existence. Either way, we tend to focus only on the threat and competitive power of politics and the coercive exchange power of economics.

As a result, many of you will strongly discount the possibility of deep participation’s social energy and its ability to begin the process of sustainable change. The idea that it can also generate collective or group acts of altruism will probably be rejected outright by some. In other words, we simply have not considered in our own societies the possibility that this social integrative power exists in the same way that political and economic powers are recognized to exist.

But observation of participatory dynamics in times of increasing social tension and increasing levels of social change in differing situations and cultures indeed indicates its existence, as we will observe. In each of the case study examples discussed in Part II of this book, deep participation and its accompanying social energy generate not only sustaining community initiatives and change, but also substantive acts of group altruism, which is observed to be part of the social change process.

Knowing beforehand that these observations and resulting concepts will be under discussion opens the mind to different and new possibilities. Metaphorically, for instance, we can then adjust and contemplate both the call-and-response rhythms of the phrase “Everybody counts or nobody counts!” as it might be chanted at any of many social protests or discussed in groups that are profoundly involved in deep participation processes. Differing perspectives of fairness and justice—particularly the lack of it—fuel 21st-century conflicts. With this understanding, let’s begin to sort through the issues we need to understand in order to fully explore deep participation dynamics and the resulting social change.

New insights into the dynamics of social change

Change, particularly social change that involves shifts in societal values and social structure, as observed earlier, is normally such a slow process as to be almost imperceptible within the life of one generation. When change is perceptible, it is usually the abrupt and coercive revolutionary change forced by military actions toppling long-established traditions. However, the breakdown of exploitative colonial systems on three continents of Africa, Asia, and South America in the 1960s set the stage for a different situation to emerge. The appearance of social movements within the newly emerging countries, plus the creation of international development assistance to promote economic, social, and political development, began a 50-year period of fast-paced and intense change on all fronts. For those of us who were interested, this intensification allowed observation of the actual dynamics of social change as diverse societal groups initiated their preferred changes within relatively circumscribed time frames.

At this point, we need to back up for a few moments and consider the definition of social change itself. Perhaps the best overarching description of the varying conceptual approaches to social change is the terse “evolution versus revolution” phrase that captures the centrality of action, fixity, and long-standing disagreement. But usually our first introduction to this subject is a bit more sophisticated by way of introduction to famous ideas, thinkers, and particular schools of disciplinary thought in sociology and anthropology. This tradition of ideas is used effectively in the well-regarded book, Four Sociological Traditions by Randall Collins.¹ Collins covers the historical rise of the social sciences and four key sociological traditions of thought: the conflict, the rational/utilitarian, the Durkhemian, and the newest addition, the microinteraction. In each tradition’s theories and history, the idea or concept of social change—but not an observed dynamic—is the central organizing point around which theories are developed and analysis tested.

There are exceptions to this “idea orientation” across the disciplines, of course, and they are of particular interest to us for our purposes. Theorists who start with a definition of social change, and then go on to explore actual dynamics of change, are rare. For the few that do, this interest in social change dynamics seems to relate to the particular interests of the social scientists themselves and the time in which they worked. For example, in 1972, Robert Nisbet, the sociologist, published Social Change and used the elements of change dynamics as a central organizing point.² He was known at the time as a “conservative” because of his forthright interest in community and its intermediate institutions and his strong concern that the “emerging focus on the nation state was eclipsing, or diminishing research interest in the community” within his own discipline.³

Nisbet’s focus on community and its intermediate institutions kept him cognizant of social change dynamics. But for a definition of social change based on actual observation, he had to go back several decades to the work of A. R. Radcliffe-Brown (1957), the social anthropologist known for his combination of theory and practice. Nisbet quotes Radcliffe-Brown as follows:

The word “change” (and more particularly process) is ambiguous in relation to society. I want to differentiate two totally different kinds. One goes to a primitive society, witnesses the preliminaries to a marriage ceremony, the ceremony itself, and its consequences: two individuals formerly unrelated or in a special relationship, are now in another, that of husband and wife; a new group has been organized, which develops into a family. Obviously, you have here something which you can call social “change” or “process”. There is change within the structure. But it does not affect the structural form of the society ... They are analogous to the changes which the physiologist can study in an organism—the changes of metabolism, for instance. The other type of change occurs when a society, as a result of disturbances induced by either internal developments or impact from without, changes its structural form. (Emphasis added by Nisbet)

Nisbet maintains that without these two distinctions made by Radcliffe-Brown, it is simply impossible to lay the groundwork for a theory of social change. He then continues the quote by Radcliffe-Brown,

These two types of change [sic] it is absolutely necessary to distinguish and study separately. I would suggest that we call the first kind “readjustment”. Fundamentally, it is a readjustment of the equilibrium of a social structure. The second I would prefer to call “change of type”. However slight the latter may be, it is a change such that when there is sufficient of it, the society passes from one type of social structure to another. (Emphasis added)⁴

In the following chapters the differentiation between these two types of social change is by far the most important factor in our exploration of participation and the dynamics of social change. Paraphrasing Radcliffe-Brown’s definition of readjustment change as “a change within the structure, but one that does not affect the structure itself” for our purposes is an exact definition of the type of change that takes place in ordinary participation. It readjusts, thereby guarding the stability of the structure, with equilibrium intact and ongoing. But change-of-type social change is very different. No matter how small or seemingly insignificant initially, the change itself “alters the structure itself when there is enough of it”. To use a different but evocative phrase, the social change, no matter how small, will radically change “the rules of the game”. This is the kind of change that comes forth in deep participation, and it is always significant—even though it may take some time to be recognized. In other words, it disrupts the established equilibriums and sets the changed structure or entity on a very different path.

Before we move forward, there is one more question: I am sure that many, as they read, will begin to wonder why there is such a strong focus on Africa throughout this book. Of course, the intense social change experienced in African countries during the second half of the 20th century is one answer. And the inherent selectivity generated by my own professional perspective as an Africanist could account for my using the continent of Africa as the generator of data—a laboratory of sorts. But there is much more to it than that.

Certainly Africa is a continent that most of us know primarily because of its problems with poverty and conflict. For me, however, the choice of Africa is based on a very different perspective. When visitors enter a rural African community for the first time, for example—no matter its culture, no matter its economic standing—they are often struck by the paucity of material goods and the minimum level of physical resources, such as easily available drinking water. If visitors stay and begin to seriously explore the community, they may begin to feel surrounded by uncomfortable levels of disorder. Here, there is neither comfortable linearity to box in and define public and private spaces nor a separation of agricultural fields from the savanna and the forest; in fact, both underscore the community’s continuous interaction with surrounding nature. So, for new visitors, everything seems to have a haphazardly completed or an unfinished, in-process feel to it.

Given the lack of material comforts and the seemingly unfinished and uncontrolled environment, the assumption is often made that the community’s indigenous scientific, political, and social knowledge systems are also rudimentary and unsophisticated. But if visitors stay for any length of time, a slow accumulation of experiences begins that, in time, allows them to recognize the complex and well-developed philosophical, knowledge, and management systems—all indigenous—that have allowed African communities to exist, grow, and thrive, often under the most difficult physical conditions.

In sum, despite its many different cultures, and despite the poverty or violence that specific geographic locations across the continent experience, African social development has always nurtured a working methodology of collaborative participatory action as part of its social heritage. Thus, it makes sense to tap into this vast social knowledge reservoir and to use it as a base to Africa’s, and everyone else’s, global advantage.⁵

Recognizing that elephant sitting in our global living room

Before we move forward, we must also meet the uninvited elephant that has been sitting so patiently in our global living room. Its presence is so unsettling that we have managed to ignore it, for the most part, during the past 50 years. The question that the elephant has waited so long to pose is the following: Can we have worldwide economic development that includes effective social justice and poverty eradication, together with a sustainable ecological environment? Few of us want to ask, or to answer, that question. As part of the now 7 billion people who currently inhabit this planet, those of us who are not poor share a sneaking but unstated and embarrassed suspicion that we will have to part with the global consumer economy and our comfortable lifestyles if we attempt to alleviate poverty for the 2.8 billion who currently survive on less than $2 a day, or certainly if we concern ourselves with the “bottom billion” that live on less than $1 a day.

But there is an even more alarming aspect to this scenario: the elephant is getting bigger as she patiently sits and waits for us to recognize her. During the last 40 years, the earth’s population has grown by more than 2 billion, and the planet has adjusted. But this adjustment was accomplished by seriously degrading our environment’s resources, particularly the basic resources of soil, water, and clean air. Before population growth stabilizes, in the next 30 years, we must welcome another 2 billion people, with another 1 billion in the following 20 years—all of this with fewer natural resources. Population stabilization has been projected to emerge by the end of the century at around 10 billion.⁶ However, on October 31, 2011, the world’s population hit 7 billion, a number reached much faster than was anticipated by most population experts.⁷

These macrostatistics also do not take into account deadly interactions of violence, poverty, and failed states around the globe. Christian Parenti’s recent book, Tropic of Chaos: Climate Change and the New Geography of Violence, compellingly documents how the “catastrophic convergence” of poverty, violence, and climate change acts as a negative accelerant, such that each component compounds and amplifies the other. He points out, for instance, that the popularity of asymmetrical war in the global South is duplicated in the global North by the increased use of counterinsurgency in its ongoing wars, and the increased militarization of its local police forces as well. “Society is the target and as such it is damaged. ... In the process, it helps set off self-fueling processes of social disintegration”.⁸ In addition, the 2011 World Development Report illustrates that violence plays a greater role than previously thought in keeping countries poor.⁹ So yes, this may be a more superficially peaceful world for some of us, but not all of us.

So, this is the difficulty that keeps us from fully acknowledging that now very lonely elephant: we profess to want to solve the constellation of poverty, environmental damage, and conflict/violence. We work to diminish these negative and interactive factors in our global world, and sometimes even demonstrate for it. But, at bottom, we want to avoid responding to the elephant’s question because we know it will require a focus, cohesion, and solidarity that are clearly beyond our present capacity to achieve. In fact, we have collectively avoided facing that elephant for 40 years because we internally understand that we don’t have the collaborative capacities to make the difficult realities of the world match our oft-stated objectives, and we fear that we never will. Therefore, we tend to divert our attention to easier ideas and more attainable objectives.

However, there is no longer any choice but to confront the issue that ethical ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Introduction: Turning Points
• Part I Rethinking Participation and Social Change
• Part II Deep Participation: A Natural Dynamic of the World
• Part III Participatory Social Theory in a Fast Changing World
• Permissions
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index