Going Public Book Club – Chapter 10: Three Public Cultures

This last section of the book is called “The Habit of Reflection”, and this is a key practice in organizing. After any meeting, action, or training, leaders and organizers take the time to evaluate the work, how things went, and to reflect on what could have gone better. More on reflecting in a moment, but first I want to think more about what Gecan has to say about the relational culture that is key to the civic sector, and its fragility.

At the end of the chapter, Gecan says this:

“[Relational culture] requires constant attention–disorganizing and reorganizing–or it will slide into a bureaucratic pattern or be taken over by opportunistic market forces or simply cease to exist.” (166)

Building the habit of relating is difficult, because it cuts against the grain of our larger culture, and it takes a lot of attention, work, and introspection. One of the greatest and also most challenging things about relational meetings is that no two are alike. And this can be unsettling, which in a way is the point of those meetings. They help us to see the self-interest of the other person, but they also, done well, give us greater insight into our own self-interest. 

Strong power organizations like Jersey City Together are built on the strength of the relationships, both within and between the member institutions and between leaders in the organization and other people in the civic and other sectors. In the study I mentioned last week of organizing during the pandemic, one thing that all of the leaders emphasized about the use of digital tools was that they were simply a means to the end of maintaining and building relationships. Here is how a leader put it in our interview with her:

“...we were involved in schools so much, and they were going virtual, we learned to go virtual, and because we have the relationships, it just meant another way of connecting to each other…the relationship was the strongest thing that helps us to get connected…the virtuality was just a process.”

The organizations that stay around for a long time are always disorganizing and reorganizing, and that is about continually building relationships. It is the relationships that build a strong community.

Returning to the point about reflection, this is an important practice in the process of developing leaders. In her now classic book on leadership development in social change organizations, Hahrie Han found that organizations that built in relationship-building practices to their organizing and that encouraged a process of collective reflection on the organizing work by leaders were more effective in keeping people engaged in their organization and in effecting change.

Relating, reorganizing, reflecting: all important practices in building and maintaining local power organizations. And it has the benefit of also bringing joy to the work: what is better than really getting to know our fellow humans, and working together to improve life in our communities

I recall learning about the “three public cultures” at a “JC Together University” training held at Saint Peter’s University in early December 2016. It was when I first met Jyl and other leaders who I would end up working with in the ensuing years. I could go in many directions about how beneficial that training was; but the relevant insight for this reflection is: the trainer (Frank McMillan) referred to the “three sectors” frame:

1. The Market Culture 
2. The Bureaucratic Culture
3. The Relational Culture

I had never heard or seen this frame before but I found it so clarifying given my experience with Civic Parent up until that point.

By the time I took the training at JCT University in 2016, I had already been writing Civic Parent for two years. I recall having dinner with my sister in Paulus Hook and mulling over possible names for my new blog about local finance that I wanted to write. We came back to "civic" parent because of how foundational that word is: civic, and what Gecan is pointing to is: civics is relational. 

When I started sharing my articles and it hit the radars of some who were in, or proximate to, politics, I encountered a curious and at the time disorienting reaction: some assumed I wanted to run for office. They interpreted civic engagement as some type of political tool. And I guess that's not unreasonable because we are climatized to see only the elected talking about our local finance.

But we have agency too; to understand budgets, taxes, and more. And we all can get involved; in a local neighborhood group, faith community, etc. and figure out what makes sense to learn about as a group, to push on, etc.

Gecan and his role as a paid organizer is hugely helpful in this regard. The organizing helps civic actors become more self-aware of their own potential, act with confidence in their civic spaces, and then relate to the politics in a disciplined manner. That is, at its core, what I find so valuable about it.

I've grown more grateful for those who are working hard and ethically in public office, as they are charged with making compromises and doing it in the public sector, under intense scrutiny (which they campaigned to own).

Civics is, by its nature, slower and more incremental work. It is like growing a garden; seed-sowing, nurturing, pruning, cultivating.  It is, by its very nature, slower, less inclined towards instant gratification, but has potential for lasting, transformative change.

This is exciting, rewarding work if it's organized, which it must be; otherwise it's exhausting, subject to burnout, and ultimately short-lived. 

Gecan makes a point to not denigrate any sector and that’s important too. We need individuals with ethics and goodwill in each sector, and self-interest is key so that we are honest about who we are, what we are doing, when, and where, and why.