Chuck Grimes wrote:
>
> The subject doesn't really matter (IMO).
Probably. In any case, if it does matter, that will be determined by the concrete conditions within which the meeting/forum/whatever is convoked. Perhaps some forethought is worthwhile, though, if only to prevent those with bee in their bonnet from running away with it. I remember the very first political activity I ever engaged in, only a month or so after I had joined this local civil rights group. I forget what the issue was, but quite a bit of publicity got put out urging people to attend a city council meeting. The group reserved the gym in a nearby YWCA and ordered various refreshments. And there was a really large turnout (black and white).
But one of the leading spirits in the group had been to Mississippi the summer before, and his head was awhirl with the excitement of that. So after the city council meeting, instead of proceeding to the place prepared, he got a very dinky bunch together and they started singing civil-rights songs in front of city hall at around 9:00 at night. Some of the people had walked off before we even started for the Y. And no one had really prepared for success; that is, no one had the least idea what to do when we were assembled in a big circle. In a way it was still sort of exciting, but nothing came of it, and not even one new face was added to the group. One determination I derived from this was that failure was acceptable -- success that could not be exploited because of lack of preparation was not.
And while our experience here in Bloomington last fall and winter (as well as a number of things I remember from the '60s) shows that people are really eager to talk, and respond well to being provided with the opportunity, the question of "What shall we do next?" remains a nagging concern; somehow it has to be gotten across that it is really worthwhile just talking to one another, and that involves (I think) incorporating into the talk some sense of it's leading someplace.
But to return to one of the takeoff points for this bundle of threads, at all costs one must avoid the Big Lie: the promise that what movement groups do is going to make an immediate difference in state policy. That merely leads to despair of the will as well as pessimism of the intellect.
I don't have the slightest idea whether maillist discussion can contribute to this or not -- but hey, I'm retired.
> One technique is to have say
> five or more speakers or stage types present, then break to smaller
> groups for discussion where audience becomes participant (workshop
> style), with a quick list of responses or position or concerns coming
> from the smaller groups and later published somewhere---at least
> mailed back to the people who showed up.
I've some experience with this sort of thing. It is promising but not easy to pull off. It occurs to me as I type that this sort of thing would make excellent content for a newsletter, and a newsletter can of course be used by group members for further outreach.
I like your whole post, but I've no more thoughts for now.
Carrol
>
> I had almost the same reaction to the Afghan film showing that Doug
> came to in SF Presideo about six months ago. And of course no more
> than a quick chance to say hello.
>
> Nice audience and small enough to have broken up into groups for a
> short discussion (Q&A, position statements, etc) of various parts of
> the war and reactions to 9/11 which pretty much divided along
> neoliberal to left spectrum. Of course such a breakdown to smaller groups
> didn't happen.
>
> The other positive is speakers and organizers get a much more accurate
> reading of a local audience when they can be engaged one to one. It
> doesn't take long to figure out what level of awareness and grasp of
> the issues local participants have after you see them close up. And
> then too, just because everybody comes from the same area doesn't
> mean they know each other or know about other activities---and smaller
> lead groups open this possibility.
>
> So small groups after a limited main event alone sets up the answer to
> where to go from here for organizers or more pro-active types. General
> sympathy toward a cause or position isn't enough---it needs to be
> built up from the people.
>
> Chuck Grimes