Sociologists who study organizations sometimes use the term ‘field’ to describe a set of organizations linked together as competitors and collaborators within a social space devoted to a particular type of action — such as a market for certain products, the pursuit of urban development, or the realm of electoral politics. Agreements struck among the organizations that compose a field set the bounds on what kinds of organizational and individual action are possible.”
-Nicole Marwell, Bargaining for Brooklyn: Community Organizations in the Entrepreneurial City
Inspired by this quote, I’ve been thinking a lot about my subjective “field” as a researcher and how my specific placement has influenced the way I see the “field”. My experience has been especially interesting because I’ve been working with both Rooted in Resilience, a non-profit community-based organization, and the Resilient Communities Initiative (RCI), a coalition of 11 Bay Area environmental organizations. Rooted in Resilience is both a member of RCI and the host of the coalition, meaning that I get to see a unique view of the coalition and the way that it operates. The members of RCI, which include the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project (WOEIP), Greenaction, Environmental Coalition for Water Justice (EJCW) and others, are all environmental organizations that focus on both different aspects of the environment and different Bay Area communities. RCI specifically focuses on sea-level rise and climate resilience, which are issues that many of the member organizations also focus on, but as is the case with any organization, some members are more invested and interested than others. Especially as coalitions get bigger, the interpersonal relations and organizational relations get more and more complicated, but these connections also have more potential to produce change as they are operating as part of a bigger sphere of influence. In this way, I’ve been thinking a lot about the ways in which a coalition functions as a group and the ways in which it functions as an individual organization. With my work on a communications plan to best promote the coalition, I’ve been struggling with the language to use because RCI is representative of its member organizations but also of itself as an individual entity. This duality is fascinating but also extremely complicated, and I feel as though in a field such as environmental justice that is filled with various coalitions, it’s important to be aware and upfront about the failings and benefits of a coalition, and the steps necessary to keep it running properly.
In addition to this, the office where I work is home to six other non-profit community organizations, including the California Trade Justice Coalition (CTJC), Oakland Climate Action Coalition (OCAC), and the Local Clean Energy Alliance (LCEA). This means that at all times, there is a culture of collaboration and sharing of both literal and figurative space. The sense of family and community that arises from a small office and people working on similar issues, but for different organizations is quite unique and has really shaped my experience. I also have a new appreciation for the different organizational perspectives that people come from. While everyone comes from a very liberal, social justice-oriented background, each unique organizational focus adds something to every discussion we have, however casual or non-work related. I’ve been especially lucky to be able to sit in on meetings and events that these organizations have had and have gotten a sense of the similarities in the work that’s been done. In many ways, it feels as though the organizations are all part of one bigger organization and one bigger movement.
In terms of finding a way to expand or rupture the “bounds on what kinds of organizational and individual action are possible”, I have been thinking a lot about the ways in which grant-based work and different organizational goals and finances really put up barriers between organizations with common goals. Even within coalitions, there are individual organizational goals that must be met and funders that must be answered, and those often come before the coalition. I’m wondering if it would be possible to have a more flexible coalition form that centers more on the ideas than on the structure and individual goals within the organization. I’m aware that sounds extremely idealistic, but I feel as though the wider goal and the wider environmental issues sometimes get lost within smaller conflicts over decisions or the directions that funders push people. I wonder whether there is room to re-focus efforts onto the ideas that are driving the movement.
Also, while I understand that environmental organizations stick together for a reason, I wonder what would happen if we were to integrate community organizations that don’t necessarily focus on environmental issues in the coalition framework. There are so many different communities, cultures, and ethnicities present in the fabric of the Bay Area, and I think that being more aware of community needs and backgrounds through mapping, thinking historically, and interdisciplinary thinking could really help to push the environmental movement forward. As a researcher, I’m fascinated by the connections that I see between this particular field and the other many overlapping fields and how those together can create more powerful spheres of impact and power.
Ah, the perils of coalition-building! One thing you don’t directly mention, but is probably an issue for the member organizations as well, is competition for funds. It’s nice to coalesce around a shared goal, but when one’s bread and butter is connected to getting a grant that a partner organization is trying to secure too, it can be challenging to put individual objectives aside! I’d love to hear more about these other organizations, which all seem to be dedicated to individual issues within the larger environmental movement. Do you think they are representative of Oakland communities or simply those that see themselves directly effected by environmental change? I like your idea VERY MUCH of building coalition around ideas that are cross-disciplinary and draw on different kinds of knowledge production. Particularly when we’re talking about science and data, there tends to be a division between those with expertise and authority and those whose expertise and authority is not communicated through the rigorous distinctions that traditional science and data require. What would local-knowledge-as-data look like if it were cross-disciplinary? .