I think this photograph sums the logic up best:
 |
| Image Credit: The Other 98% (on Facebook) |
The first response, "If you give me a fish," signifies the charitable impulse. The social worker responds to the immediate needs of the client, to resolve the immediate crisis, but does not have the time, resources, or -- perhaps -- the inclination to do more for the client. Perhaps resolving the immediate crisis will be enough, it may provide the client with the breathing room needed to recover, so that the client can then take things into his or her own hands. But the problem may actually be deeper, in which case....
The second response, "If you teach me to fish," signifies intervention that teaches the client how to avoid future crises, or to respond to crises on his or her own, once they arise. This mode of social work practice is based on the assumption that if the client's behavior (or culture) can be changed their circumstances will improve. But what if the problem is bigger than the behavior, knowledge-base, or culture of a group or individual?
The third response, "If you teach me to organize," signifies intervention based on the assessment that the problem is structural and systemic at its core. Often problems, while having cultural or behavioral components to them, become intractable because of the disparity of social, political, and economic power -- and the way the "rules of the game" have been drawn up to protect the powerful. This requires development of skills that will shift the distribution of power (or access to information in order to make the system work for the vulnerable). Frequently this entails establishing cultural capital by linking with the interests and activities of others.
It is always helpful to be able to identify the underlying assumptions behind any particular mode of intervention. Michael Jacoby Brown contrasts and compares different methods of social intervention in the following video:
In this video Brown discusses the underlying assumptions behind the basic methods of social intervention. These methods are service, advocacy, mobilization, and activism; then he distinguishes between those modes of intervention and community organizing. This helps to draw out the fundamental methods and principles of community organizing and what its objectives entail.
How does organizing, as a form of intervention, distinguish itself from the other modes of intervention?
What are the attributes and parts of this thing we call "organizing"?
What are the assumptions that underlie the selection of community organizing as one's mode of intervention?
What assumptions underlie the selection of each of the other modes of intervention?
What is essential, in order for community organizing, or an organization, to be effective?
