First point I would stress is that most organizing is very much "preaching to the converted" -- but more to the point, giving those who give a damn a role to play and showing them something in motion. This is important to stress, because too much of the time there's this idea that it's about getting out a message that will inspire action in itself among the masses -- this is hardly ever the case, and in fact, if it were successful in creating a spontaneous movement, it would be a real mess; that movement will lack leadership and will fall apart -- these are two reasons for leadership: to create motion and so that coordination is in place and ready to go.
So please don't get waylaid by that line of argument, that somehow it's about message. But what you want is to build strength, which is measured in terms of people performing dependable roles. That said, CPTech (now Knowledge Ecology International) has been for years working with parties on all sides of these discussions, internationally. James Love uses the notion of liability rules to articulate alternative approaches to investment in information products. It's certainly good to have a good argument. However: We (NYFU) have found that consistently ~18% of people pitched on the sidewalk in Brooklyn to help with things like the broadcast flag and the impact of "DRM" on libraries have been willing to sign up for a specific tactic within a week. I forget what the rate is for people who stop to listen to the basic issue. There's absolutely no better way to reach people while galvanizing motion, than to establish an action that's already on the docket, that you're pitching people to take part in, then do proper outreach with a pitch, right on the street. It's a massive step up from demonstrations and PR -- and think about it -- far better for building strength than getting copy in the paper. Which is not to say that PR isn't important; it's just that it's not what organizing is about. Martin Luther King didn't start the civil rights movement with speeches; that movement was triggered by uppity organizers called "Freedom Riders" who specifically went down South and organized the black communities in the middle of very backwards communities. It's the backdrop of ongoing motion like that that loads a speech with true motivating force. You bring validation to existing motion, and you provide those listening with something to step into. That's how you get the jewels, the people who are looking for something but finding it nowhere. And it's that whole package that brings the rest along. And this is even more important today, when everything, *everything* has highly sophisticated corporate countercampaigns. It is your basis in strength that will enable you to beat that. Nothing else; if you don't start with this understanding, you'll be sliced and diced and undermined. (I preach whenever I get an itch) Seth Denver Gingerich wrote: > > On 9/5/07, Gavin Baker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [Blatant self-promotion follows:] > > > > I'm the current guest blogger at Terra Incognita, Penn State's > > open education blog. The post is about open access, and suggests > > that OA journal literature be considered part and parcel of open > > education. > > > > The series concept at Terra Incognita is to encourage a lively > > discussion from the community, so I invite you to read and comment > > on my post: > > > > http://blog.worldcampus.psu.edu/index.php/2007/09/05/open-access-journal/ > > > > I hope this will be a conversation-starter and help sharpen the > > community's understanding of OA and OERs. > > Indeed it is a conversation-starter, but I think that more people need > to see it, especially those that support the current royalty-based > system of academic journals. > > >From the article's comments it seems that most of the people that have > read the article already subscribe to the ideals of free culture so > it's really not changing anyone's mind. We need to get people from > the "other side" of the debate involved because the current royalty > system will remain until people see why Open Access is better. > > I'm sure this is a common problem in many related areas of discussion > (F/LOSS, free music, etc.) so I'm wondering if maybe there are people > on this list that have found methods of reaching the people that don't > want to change to more free ways of doing things or don't know about > them. I'd be interested to hear about these methods. > > Denver > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss -- RIAA is the RISK! Our NET is P2P! http://www.nyfairuse.org/action/ftc DRM is Theft! We are the Stakeholders! New Yorkers for Fair Use http://www.nyfairuse.org [CC] Counter-copyright: http://realmeasures.dyndns.org/cc I reserve no rights restricting copying, modification or distribution of this incidentally recorded communication. Original authorship should be attributed reasonably, but only so far as such an expectation might hold for usual practice in ordinary social discourse to which one holds no claim of exclusive rights. _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://freeculture.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
