Human Services as Complex Organizations, ch 24 "Social Movement Service Organizations"

Interesting that author continuously portrays advocacy activities as contentious, disruptive, and portrays people as addressing "grievances."  Makes a big deal of the change from "client" to "participant"

One point presented: Organizations first gained acceptance for the grievances of their constituencies through the less confrontational avenue of service provision, but that once the baseline legitimacy is established they go on to directly challenge social and political institutions.

What I hear (but don't read in the article) is that through service provision some groups figure out what political and social structures are really being faced by the people being served-this galvanizes an advocacy response. When service efforts are stymied, then targets for advocacy become clear. Service agencies reject putting on bandaids-and tackle the "real" problems behind their work.  This helps explain why it is no surprise that successful service organizations become successful advocacy organizations and "have their feet in two camps" .

 "Radical action" concerns the author. Suggests that government funding facilitates conventional forms of advocacy, such as lobbying of legislators or govt administrators but discourages more radical action.  -Probably very true.  What exactly constitutes "radical action"?  GreenPeace sending the Zodiacs to dock alongside giant fishing factories?  I'm not aware of much "radical action" these days.  I do not consider media campaigns to be radical.  But protracted legal campaigns to change laws can have radical effects (eventually).

Cognitive liberation discussion is interesting.  Seems the author missed the entire feminist teaching that "The personal is political."  Seems to have discomfort that "individuals begin to view their own personal troubles as 'normal' within the context of broader political and economic forces" and transform the understanding that systemic injustices are the problem, not personal short-comings. The author here too uses the charged words: self-blame, grievances, victims, villains, heightening discontent.  Meant to be a discussion of the expressive side of organizing work-but the expression expected is all negative (?).

 The discussion of "recruiting from dense networks" makes the assumption that service recipients and advocates are the same persons.  The book Forces for Good portrays several key organizations (presumably SMSOs) where they are not generally so: Habitat for Humanity as one example attracts a number of key advocates (Jimmy Carter) who are not service recipients.

 In the relevant and important discussion of "framing" the accusation is a bit jarring that some groups, such as gay rights organizations "have succeeded in inserting their stories into grand, validating narratives" such as the work to "cast gay rights as a civil rights issue, seeking to legitimize its cause by association."  What? Gay rights is not a civil rights issue? I beg to differ with this assumption. Planned Parenthood also has been successful portraying the right to reproductive health care as a simple right to effective health care.

 Interesting too is the brief discussion of getting government help to ameliorate a situation where there are deeply entrenched interests that cannot easily be changed. The low-income energy assistance program comes to mind, where the fuel companies are getting loads of government money in the form of payments for low-income persons so they can keep their electricity on or pay for heating fuel. In effect, the bad guys' "support must be maintained if the organization is to continue receiving funding."   Love the quote: ". . .an SMSOs service provision frame and advocacy frame may exist in uneasy tension with one another."