Tag Archives: 1-on-1

Manipulation and Trust in Organizing

[This post is part of a series on 1-on-1 organizing conversations. A pamphlet version of this post is available for download here.]

Introduction

For people new to organizing it can feel like it’s about tricking people or manipulating them or guiding them to the correct place. People who shy away from organizing because of this have a healthy response to perceived manipulation. However, I think organizing that is sincere and empowering isn’t about manipulation at all and is just the opposite.

The reason people often say that organizing feels manipulative is that you have a goal in your interactions with other people. Whether your organizing is actually manipulative depends on what your goal is and how you pursue it. If your goal is to narrowly impose your ideas and practices on others, then your organizing is manipulative and domineering. If your goal is to open up space to discuss social problems, explore the effects those problems are having on your community, and imagine together what kinds of actions might fix those problems, then your organizing can be empowering. Learning to identify and navigate between empowerment and manipulation in organizing is essential and will determine whether you see those around as pawns or partners in the fight for a better world.

Continue reading →

Organizing Is Not about Getting People to Agree with Radical Ideas

[This post is part of a series on 1-on-1 organizing conversations.]

Intro

There is one misconception in organizing, especially workplace organizing, that is responsible for more confusion and dead ends than any other. It manifests itself in many ways, but it boils down to this: “The way I was radicalized and got involved in organizing is the way everyone is radicalized and gets involved in organizing.”

Most commonly, people new to organizing and radical politics try to show others their own new ideas, when really those same ideas will refract very differently depending on others’ very different experiences. Most often, people don’t immediately cling to the ideas you cling to. This often leads new organizers to become exasperated and confused, “Why does no one else get radicalized when I show them the things that radicalized me?”

Continue reading →

Agitation and the 1-on-1

[This post is part of a series on 1-on-1 organizing conversations. Check out the intro post here to see how agitation is defined. The below post is an exploration of ideas based on that definition and framework.]

Intro

Agitation in organizing is the spark that creates the wildfire. Like in all parts of life, our emotions lead, our thoughts agree, and then our behavior follows. In part AEIOU is about channeling this natural progression of human action.

Continue reading →

An Introduction to 1-on-1 Organizing Conversations

[This is the central post in a blog series about 1-on-1 conversations. A pamphlet version of this post is available for download here.]

The 1-on-1 organizing conversation between coworkers is at the heart of grassroots union organizing. Because capitalist society in general and capitalist workplaces especially are conditioned so that people don’t feel empowered to stand up to the status quo and make demands around their needs and wants, workers often feel helpless in the face of serious grievances at work. Union organizing techniques exist precisely to bridge this gap between widespread passive worker agitation and the need for collective action. 1-on-1 organizing conversations are the main tool that unionists have to pierce through the fear of authority and learned helplessness imposed by capitalism.

How 1-on-1s are done varies somewhat across different organizing traditions, but the core elements of 1-on-1s in each tradition are largely the same. Most of the these ideas also apply directly to student and tenant organizing, but the presentation here will be framed around labor organizing. As a basic definition, a 1-on-1 organizing conversation is a talk you have with a fellow worker to 1) build a relationship of trust, 2) identify common grievances and shared interests, and 3) move together from a place of inaction to one of action.

Continue reading →