Nathan Newman wrote:
>I'll be interested in seeing the piece, but where are the intellectuals
>embedded in the movement? Why aren't they there asking those questions in
an
>organic way and promoting a discussion on such matters in a manner that
>addresses the needs of those activists?
-As you'll see in the piece, we've all tried that, and gotten shot -down. One incident in my personal experience. I was on a panel with -an activist lawyer who was touting the importance of encouraging -small business development in NYC. When I pointed out, as I often do, -that small businesses pay less, offer fewer fringe benefits, are more -dangerous places to work, and are harder to organize than large -businesses, this was dismissed as "the paralysis of analysis." The -point, you see, is to do, not to think.
Panels are not organic participation- they are often speculative and not grounded in exactly the concrete organizational imperatives that I noted are the key places for intervention. The interesting question is always where a particular impulse for a position comes from-- someone working with immigrant workers might be quite favorable to small business, since such firms are far more likely to hire them compared to larger firms. Yes, this reflects worse working conditions but also reflects the smaller business's likelihood of flying under the radar of the INS. Certain strategies make sense for some groups and less sense for others, so an abstract statement that small business development is bad doesn't have much meaning outside the concrete choices facing particular organizations.
Look-- I've had plenty experiences with the skepticism of analysis in particular situations. I've also had lots of experience with intellectuals disparaging and ignorin the real strategic constraints activists operate under. My point is that the either-or choice ignores the need for far better integration.
-- Nathan Newman