>Never been comfortable with idiomatic expressions. But in terms of the
>relation of the Black Church to the civil rights movement, you got the
>tail wagging the dog, as shown incisively by Adolph Reed, Jr. in The Jesse
>Jackson Phenomenon. Yale University Press, 1986.
My assertion was based on studies of social movement recruitment showing that existing organizations (including churches) provided efficient venues for such recruitment. This, BTW, is the backbone of the resource mobilization theory of social movements.
Since I am not familiar with the source you cite, and you do not outline the argument it contains, I'd like to know if Reed argues that civil rights movement was inititated by more radical faction, and churches only followed and joined in? I cannot think of any other way of "tail wagging the dog" in this context.
But if that is the argument, this is hardly a rebuttal of my initial assertion about the importance of organizational resources. A movement can be started by a small group with little or no organiztaional resources, but it can only sustain itself and grow if it finds suffcient already existing organizational resources. Those organizational resources do not have to be ideollogically aligned (at least initially) with the movement's programs, they might be unlikely to start the movement by themeselves, tey might be even reluctnat followers. Eventually, the credit for the movement (if successful) will go to thos who 'conceived' it rather than those who 'nurtured' it - consistently with the patriarchal folk imagery and values.
But the fact of the matter is that without the already existing organizational resources, the act of the movement's 'conception' would be hardly anything more than an act of masturbation. We would have 'riots' 'disturbances' but not a movement than can sustain itself and grow.
That, BTW, is not an endorsement of organized religion, Black or otherwise.
Recognition of their considerable organizational resources - yes, (which their leaders may not even fully control), but that does not mean that their ideology is not reactionary. Similar situation was faced by the church in Latin America - they faced the choice of either joining the popular struggle agains the dictatorship or be pushed aside. So naturally they joined and even produced a 'liberation theology' -- the reactionary position of their leaders notwithstanding. There is an old saying "if the people lead, the leaders will follow.' That is particularly true of religious or NGO leaders who, unlike the political leaders, lack the legitimate means of violence and coercion, and thuse depend to a gerater degree on the consent of those whom they lead.
regards,
Wojtek Sokolowski