by Fox
This is an article meant to pair with our recent interview along the same topic on It Could Happen Here. The interview can be found at the end of the text.
The Dichotomies
Here in a small rural town we face a large opposition in the form of right wing extremists, both institutional and grassroots. Yet our police departments are surprisingly more liberal than those typically found in large metropolises. Urban organizers face police departments made up of people from outside their city, imported from surrounding suburbs to occupy a space by force. This contrasts with the small town police we find who are more likely to live in the community they police, leading to a more lenient and understanding position. Since the police are the enforcement arm of the City, what this means for us is a city that doesn’t do much in the way of opposing our efforts. So far most of our opposition has come from local grassroots initiatives, and while those have led to some electoral victories in recent years, the police are unwilling to attack their own community in the way these far right politicians would like them to, the same way they see police attack marginalized communities in larger cities. While the public at large may support radical projects in traditionally liberal cities, here the public is largely ambivalent or oppositional, yet the dynamics of the local policing structure creates opportunity to take action, since the City is hamstrung in it’s efforts to stop us.
Our police have largely ignored or showed tacit support for our efforts, since they are members of the community and are here on the streets with people everyday. Nonetheless, they enforce laws that conflict with the Martin v Boise ruling out of the 9th circuit court of appeals, which states that it is unconstitutional to criminalize or punish people for living outside when there is no alternative shelters available. With the importation of officers seen in larger cities, resentment both of and by the police is increased. We may not live in a city but we are still connected to the struggle that occurs there. Here where we live we worry about white supremacist militias and in the city activist worry about their uniformed counterparts. Even if police abolition occurs, we will have the specter of white supremacy to contend with still.
One thing we have noticed here in Aberdeen is that the police are largely from Aberdeen and live in this community. This lends a certain attachment and sense of responsibility that results in much more docile policing. That and the higher rates of support for the police in this town make for police with an attitude of some old Andy Griffith type officer out to help people. Barring their own share of under reported violence and murders in comparison to officers of the cities, the police as people are less violent and more likely to lend actual assistance rather than harassment, the city leadership itself is far right at this point and when the police are told to sweep homeless people from the sidewalks daily, they do so more often than not. What this means for us is its actually much harder for us to make the arguments we want to in regards to the abolition of police. When the neighborhood watches the police terrorize people for protesting then there is a sense that these people are against our community, which build a sense of solidarity with each other usually. But when the police are out there helping old ladies cross the road, and there isn’t enough of a radically educated base to resist the police here, it is hard to say All Cops Are Bastards and make that argument.
Another obstacle to militant organizing in rural areas is the ability to remain anonymous. Certain members of our group have faced public harassment and stalking. This means that we must take these measures all the more seriously, and deeply consider the security aspects of any action. In such a small town it is far easier to be recognized, increasing the need for operational security. When you get doxxed here it is also much harder to disappear back into the crowd and eventually be forgotten about, once you are identified in a rural setting, that tag stays with you wherever you go. Larger cities can face a lack of personal connection that we have in our community here, but this de-personalization also makes anonymity an easier goal to achieve. It is far less likely you will be recognized or identified, and if you are it is much easier to drop off the map and reorganize your security procedures. Here it is harder because it’s such a small city that you are bound to either know the person yelling at you from across the street from your history in town, or they may see you driving around in normal life, and associate your identity with your activism.
When you are a part of a small town group of anarchists, it is likely that anything that goes wrong will be blamed on your group. We have seen a bit of this in Aberdeen. We never seek to put ourselves in needless risk by leaving dots that are easy to connect for extremists. We don’t want our group’s presence to deter participation on fear of retaliation. The less heat we attract the more possibility for action we have. Often alter egos and clandestine groups are needed to maintain the militancy necessary for certain actions. Not everything need be done in your group’s name, as long as it gets done.
In this small town setting we have found it necessary to be very clear in who we support and what our values are. Since the start, we have set out a public list of values shared by our group, so that people can know ahead of time what they are signing up for when they join our group. It is difficult to do, but working with the local institutions in certain aspects is also necessary. All the county’s resources are tied up in a few major players and without access to those resources our community would suffer greatly. You might make gestures of goodwill to certain people simply for strategic purposes: the city inspector, for example. This can be demoralizing, but in small towns, it’s often better to maintain an unmediated relationship with these people than to rely on second-hand gossip to present you in the best light. It is up to your working group to decide where to draw the line. At the same time, you will likely find other groups you genuinely respect and wish to support.
Unlike the bigger cities, where you can walk past almost any street pole or walk into almost any establishment and see a board filled with flyers for various events and organizations, in our town you have to fight to find any sort of social venue or organization. Yet, rural populations don’t seem to suffer in the degree that urban populations do in regards to their alienation by capital. Our modes of socialization are different, with areas like Aberdeen seeing most socialization occurring in the home, but in actuality there can be more fulfilling social engagement in a small town than a large metro area. A deeper, more meaningful relationship can be formed in the intimate environment of the home, rather than the club or the bar, which are always mediated by the influences of capitalism.
Lessons Learned
The lessons we have learned are that every struggle is unique. It depends a lot on where you are and what kind of people are around you. Are there are a lot of working class residents? Are there any factories or the like in the area? What about sectors like social care? Are there lots of care workers? What are their conditions like? Or is it all farmers? Are they small or big? What issues are pertinent to them? I think the idea is to work out where the class conflict is and where the struggle is already sort of happening on a low level and figure out how to make yourself of use to this somehow. We inhabit these rural places because they offer us space to think, a slower pace of life, a connection with the land—room for autonomous projects and ideas to physically expand and grow, like a fern unfolding, out from under the constant oversight of cops, neighbors, politicians.
We can offer up our rural spaces for rest and recuperation of front line activists. While not present in the heat of battle, we can make our isolation a strength, as often people abused directly by the system require peace and solitude to recover from such trauma. Additionally, we use our local networks to identify enemies and report this to the wider radical community. Many reactionaries live near where we do, and being able to ID them here at home makes the jobs of antifascists in large cities easier, and creates a safer space for all. We are careful to safeguard our identities and anonymize our efforts because a well-armed enemy is not something to fuck around with, especially if everyone in town knows your face and where you live. We arm and train ourselves with inclusive gun clubs and skill share exercises. Finally we can provide technical assistance in web support, graphic design, or listening to police scanners for comrades in the streets. Anything we can do virtually, we will.
A study by Washington University in St. Louis political scientists found that it isn’t personal profiles, but rather proximity to bigger cities that drives the political divide. Researchers Andrew Reeves, associate professor of political science in Arts and Sciences and Bryant J. Moy, a PhD candidate in the political science department, along with two University of Maryland co-authors, found that geography is related to substantial differences in partisanship even after accounting for a host of individual traits like age, race, gender, education and religious adherence.
“Urban-rural differences in partisan political loyalty is as familiar in the United States as they are in other countries,” said Reeves. “The general consensus has been that the origins of this divide lie within the personal characteristics of the people who live in rural or urban communities. However, our research found that the explanation was not that simple.”
In their research analysis they found that the environment around us — the distance we live away from a metropolitan area and population density — shapes what we think about the political world and the partisan labels we adopt.
But people in rural environments can actually be quite radical in their politics, its just that the partisan politics and their labels are adopted largely by these geographic determinants. The difference is that people categorize their own politics along different lines than in a more urban environment. This is at least partially because of the different media landscapes in these two environments, with conservative talk radio ruling the airwaves in more rural areas and newer internet-based media being how people in urban areas get their news. This results in two separate media bubbles that have a shared interest in keeping the other information stream out of the reach of each other’s audiences. So, we are listening to different news sources, getting different information, and it is no wonder we draw different conclusions about what is the best political course of action. We all know that conservative talk radio is a highly managed disinformation network that takes themes and talking points from the farthest right corner of the web and launder them for mainstream consumption. But millions of people ingest this content as truth everyday, and largely that audience is this rural conservative base.
Paul Force-Emery Mackie, Ph.D., LISW Professor of Social Work Minnesota State University, Mankato presented his findings on the difference between rural and urban community organizing to the National Association for Rural Mental Health’s 40th Annual Conference in Washington, DC in 2014.
He proposed Two General Approaches to Community Organizing: the Alinsky & Eichler methods
Saul Alinsky (Conflict theory & model):
In this model community power focuses on people – under-served communities rarely have enough money to fight power, but usually have strength in people (called the “Have-Nots”). To gain power, Have-Nots must TAKE power from the “Haves.” It is aggression oriented. This model focuses on people as agents of protest and creators of conflict.This is primarily the attitude seen in urban organizing, with large protests, riots, and police resistance actions framing the debate around who has power and trying to seize that power over other for oneself.
Mike Eichler (Consensus theory & model):
This model is informed by Alinsky, but focuses on identifying consensus points between divergent groups. It seeks opportunities to strengthen relationships between differing groups’ interests. It is collaboration oriented. It focuses on each groups best interests and establishing trust, mutual agreements, compromise.
Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” (1971)
Alinsky’s community organizing style centered around the following “rules for radicals.”
Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what your opponent thinks you have.
Rule 2: Never go outside the experience of your people.
Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of your enemy.
Rule 4: Make the enemy live up to their own rules.
Rule 5: Ridicule is your most potent weapon.
Rule 6: A good tactic is one your people enjoy.
Rule 7: A tactic that drags on becomes a drag.
Rule 8: Keep the pressure on.
Rule 9: The threat is usually more terrifying than the action itself.
Rule 10: The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain constant pressure on the opposition.
Eichler’s Rules (2007)
Eichler’s community organizing style centered around rules as well…
Rule 1: Block out your preferences. Allow community members to determine goals and objectives – not your preconceived notions.
Rule 2: Don’t focus on causes. Focus on expected outcomes.
Rule 3: Get specific. Nothing gets done with only a general agreement. Specify goals, tasks, and expectations.
Rule 4: Progress through honesty. Consensus organizers must be truth brokers to be trusted.
Rule 5: Explore options. The organizer is an idea collector and all reasonable ideas deserve to be explored.
Rule 6: Get commitment. For commitment to be real and lasting, the goals must be focused and visible.
Rule 7: Take the piano off your back. The final strategies must be from the group and you must follow them. Your job is to lead the group where they ultimately decide to go.
Rule 8: EZ credit. Regularly pass out credit and let people know that their participation is crucial to the process and activities are appreciated.
Under Alinsky’s model, the organizer focuses on identifying areas for change, then leading & directing others to pursue that change. Activities center around organizer’s ability to lead. Under Eichler’s model, the organizer serves more as the facilitator and supports. It asks the group what they want to accomplish and then works with group to help that occur. Activities center around group members’ ability to lead.
We have found it incredibly productive to simply ask the people we work with in our mutual aid efforts what they need and go from there. Lots of times it’s not what you would have gotten them and this can be seen in the gap between what services are often offered to the homeless and the services that are actually taken advantage of. If you aren’t asking what the communities needs are it’s unlikely that you will be able to meet them.
So why is this approach better for the rural environment? In his presentation Mackie argues that the culture of the rural aligns more with Eichler’s model since the consensus model focuses on positive and proactive rather than negative and reactive solutions to people’s problems. When we are organizing in our community we are constantly listening and asking questions to understand what is wanted by the community we are in solidarity with. We have found that a conversational approach to decision making is the best approach and that consensus models allow for maximum participation and engagement. Not only this but it is more likely that a proposed action will be followed through on when approached this way, leading to a more consistent follow through and a better reputation as a mutual aid organization. Our only asset is our reputation, and showing up consistently and not over promising ourselves is how we have built that reputation.
The consensus model recognizes broad strengths across wider community resources. We need to often work with people across a larger swath of political views than organizers in urban environments do, finding that it is more about meeting our communities needs than making everyone we work with pass some purity test. The consensus model seeks to avoid alienation and conflict. Its easy to walk out of a decision making meeting when you don’t feel heard. We don’t want to replicate the city council meetings that interest no one. The consensus model honors close relationships that must be maintained over time among familiar groups of people dependent on each other. We truly are in community with one another here, with everyone being located so close together in this small town, we often see each other daily. Many of us are out doing work in the community multiple times a week. We don’t have as many encampments to attend to as those in urban areas, so it’s easier to get to know specific people and form real bonds of comradeship and friendship. This allows for some really deep conversation about future planning that feels like it’s something you could actually accomplish and not like wishing for better days.
Rural areas are struggling to maintain/achieve political, economic, and social positions today. The culture and space of rural areas implies that geography and life-ways don’t always fit will with ability to organize people – but there are strong traditions and elements associated with rural: American Legion/VFW, Farm Bureau, Kiwanis, Grange, The National Association for Rural Mental Health (NARMH), The National Association of County Behavioral Health and Developmental Disability, The National Association of Counties (NACo), National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), Parent Teachers Association (PTA), etc. These can be focal points of strength, leadership & resources within a community. These are possible entry points for us to engage in broader base organizing efforts and to onboard people into the movement.
Conclusion
Why organize in rural places?
Because it is where we live and it needs done. While some rural needs are changing, many remain same. Severe & persistent illness racks our community in many forms. Individuals, families, and communities often struggle with substance use disorder or mental health issues due to lack of services. Organizing services can better support broad range of needs. A huge site of struggle in rural areas is education. there is a greater need for child psych & social services, with schools often in need of greater resources. There is also typically a large aging population whose needs are mostly overlooked in traditional organizing efforts. Another overlooked demographic that is abundant in rural environments is veterans. There is always a large number of rural combat Veterans due to Reserve and NG deployments. They lack access to services and can benefit greatly from mutual aid organizing efforts aimed at their unique needs. A new aspect of rural community organizing is ethnic diversity. Rural becoming more ethnically diverse. Specifically – Indigenous communities, Latinx, overseas immigration. Perhaps most importantly, rural areas always include a variety of populations, economic conditions, social services. No one strategy applies.
Why community organizing?
Too often, state & federal policy responses are myopic and narrowly focused. Often responses crafted by entities not embedded in or understanding of rural areas. Consensus organizing techniques encourage focus on what the community believes more relevant. Focusing on broader community needs will include specific concerns and encourage holistic responses. Focusing only on specific concerns limits responses. Applying consensus organizing strategies brings relevant groups together around central issues. Through the approach of community based organizing needs can be quickly identified and met at a local level. This helps us in prefiguring a world in which we do not need the State or markets in order to meet or needs. This local level of organizing also serves to empower communities to get involved in directly managing the resources and decisions that affect it.
Community organizing is different compared to more urban places in that cultures, socio-economics, and life-ways differ, and responses must recognize these differences. Community organizing is an additional approach to assisting residents to achieve goals, which for us include improving behavioral health and increasing access to needed services. Any project that seeks to meet the needs of a rural community will have to be that community self generating and self manifesting a solution of it’s own, perhaps with assistance from grassroots organizations that are embedded in the local community. We need to address the criminal justice system, the healthcare system, and the educational system in order to succeed as a movement in these rural areas. We need to be aware of vulnerable populations specific needs, and mobilize efforts to meet them. There are also cultural and socio-economic considerations to factor into any plan to address these needs as well.
For urban comrades looking to show solidarity with rural radicals, reach out and see what resources you have available that are needed in outlying towns and counties. Familiarize yourself with their struggles, promote them and their voices in your own organizing. Learn from the lessons we have to offer about small scale organizing and consensus based decision making in small groups. Let us know how we can contribute to your struggles as well, know that we are ready and able to help in your digital organizing if you are willing to ask. We have resources you may need as well, such as respite from the city. We need to bridge this gap between us, because although there are many differences in our material conditions, we are the same, and our struggles are the same. By learning from each other we can only strengthen our movements towards liberation.
For more discussion on this topic check out this recent interview with Sprout and Charyan from Molotov Now! on It Could Happen Here:
Sources:
source.wustl.edu/2020/02/the-divide-between-us-urban-rural-political-differences-rooted-in-geography/
cornerstone.lib.mnsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=sowk_fac_pubs
bolenreport.com/saul-alinskys-12-rules-radicals/
Consensus Organizing: Building Communities of Mutual Self Interest by Mike Eichler; SAGE Publications, Jan 18, 2007