orgtheory.net

The Journal of American History ran a kind review of From Black Power to Black Studies. Here’s the review at History Cooperative via the Michigan library. Richard H. King picks up on an important theme of the book – it’s not right to think of movement-target interactions as a zero sum game:

To conclude, Rojas offers two optimistic interpretations of his own conclusion. First, the move from social movement to academic discipline was a process, not of co-optation, but of mutual transformation. Second, black studies programs can be seen as an example of a “counter center, a formalized place inside mainstream institutions where alternative viewpoints are established.”

Indeed, social movement research tends to underestimate the important of mutual influence. This might be due to the fact that some famous movements are genuinely involved in zero sum games: revolutionaries and incumbent governments are by definition mutual antagonists; labor and management fight over the same pie, at least in the short term; civil rights groups had to fight racist organizations.

But it’s also the case that the interaction between the movement and the target is transformational. In my case study of the black power movement and universities, I argued that Black Studies, the academic outgrowth of black power, changed people’s views of what was appropriate to study in other disciplines. It also provided a justification for radical spaces inside mainstream organizations, like universities. Rather than engage in a zero sum game over the curriculum, the Black Studies movement increased the scope of higher education, which allowed later generations of scholars to create new identities.

The bottom line is this. Scholars and activists might view movements as facing a choice between victory or cooptation. You get what you want, or the system gets what it wants. Here’s a different view. The real choice is between cooptation and evolution. Organizations and societies are stable and there are many mechanisms ensuring that things don’t get out of hand. There a lot of incentives just to continue doing what everyone else is doing. However, a strategic social movement might see this as an opportunity. Institutions must be renewed and activists will then have a chance to make sure that their goals are built in to the system, even though it may require recasting the movement’s most cherished goals. That’s coevolution, and it’s not a bad thing.