Rewrite and Add to Alinsky Reveille Paper.

This is what my teacher said needed to be added to my paper to get points:

I think it’s fine to argue that dialogue is better than Alinsky’s approach when approaching social problems. I’m not sure you have quite achieved an adequate argument with Alinsky, yet, but it’s certainly a reasonable conclusion. Lots of people during his time thought the same thing, and many of them were very thoughtful people.

If you want to argue that Alinsky is wrong to prefer conflict, hyowever, you need to first establish why he preferred conflict. In other words, you need to first make his argument as well as you can, and then you can critique it. And I think there is plenty in Reveille to lay out his basic argument for why he thinks conflict is more useful than dialogue as a tool.

Further, he directly critiques those who would prefer to use dialogue. What does he say at these points to justify his argument?

Sometimes there seem to be tensions in your own writing. For example, on p. 3 you sayd that “Alinsky had the vision of people living in peace and harmony”? Really? Did he think we would ever get there? Remember the “eternal war” quote? (In some ways, this seems to support your own argument, by the way)

He certainly did believe that you should treat the opposition as enemies. But that didn’t mean that you simply ignored them. Remember, he didn’t want revolution, he wanted a more equal status to allow negotiation with the powerful. Is this dialogue? Could you get to this kind of dialogue without conflict? If so, how?

So if you are going to argue that dialogue is better with the powerful than conflict, you would need to say why you think that Alinsky is wrong and that the powerful will give in just by talking with them (I don’t care if you are right, but you can’t just assert it).

And he did consider the “effects” of the means. He just didn’t limit what the means he would use, beyond his commitment to nonviolence (but didn’t want to use means with bad effects).

The ethics of Alinsky is a slightly different argument. You might split your argument in two. First arguing that Alinsky is wrong on a practical basis, and then arguing that he is wrong ethically and morally.

What I would like to see in response to the Alinsky argument is an example, from your own life or elsewhere, that would show the ways in which an Alinsky approach might make things worse and where his approach might be unethical. Give an example where “dialogue” with powerful people “has a better chance of solving a problem” as you argue. Or you might fall somewhere in-between, talking about the benefits and limitations of both positions–perhaps there are no perfect answers.

By the way, I’m not sure Alinsky says people followed people like dictators–doesn’t he say that they trust their local leaders because these leaders have shown themselves to be trustworthy? Does this make them less intelligent then than we are now? In this case as in others, if you are going to make a statement like this, I think you need quotes. In this case you might look at the example of the “little joes.” Does he say that “joe” becomes a dictator?

Also does he say you shouldn’t listen to other people at all? What would he do with a powerful person who listened and was reasonable and negotiated in good faith with the community? Would he attack that person anyway? Or would he look for someone else who wasn’t negotiating in good faith?

So, overall, I think you need to look more closely at exaclty what Alinsky said. I would start with Alinsky and not with the dialogue, instead putting the dialogue argument after you have established what Alinsky thinks–my suggestion.

Ultimately, I support you in whatever argument you want to make. I just want it to be somewhat more effective–not perfect, but more effective.

Revise