Whether or not ASM was founded to foster massive grassroots organizing is a matter for debate (I believe it was not, and if you believe it was, please justify to me with the terms “grass” and “roots” don’t appear in the Constitution or even the Bylaws.) Regardless, my purpose is not to argue about semantics. I will concede, for now, that “grassroots” organizing has become at least a relative fixture for the institution. There are, however, innumerable problems that arise from such a concept, especially when it is not a means, but an end in itself.
Allow me to clarify. The term grassroots was coined as a way to describe massive political support from within a community, rejecting typical power structures, and working from the ground up—the term was derived “from the soil of people’s hard necessities.” This works to some extent, as it creates a new mechanism for which political progress can be made. However, there are many within ASM who would like to think of themselves as a part of “grassroots committees.” This in itself is an oxymoron; imagine the thought of a committee (a typical power institution within a government) being mixed with grassroots organizing (a supposedly spontaneous anti-establishment gathering tool) and the idea makes little sense. Couple that with the practical implications of having a committee that attempts to rally the students around it, and the thought just seems downright paradoxical.
But beyond anecdotal evidence, there is little support for the idea that a grassroots organizing structure can effectively work within ASM; on the contrary, it appears that there is significant evidence that there is a clash between the two dynamics. I believe that problem derives largely from a lack of uniformity. ASM consists of two monsters: a rigidly structured financial and appointment process; and a disheveled grassroots branch. These two appear to divide ASM, leaving it void of a clearly defined vision. The question then becomes: which is more appropriate for ASM to undertake? Given that ASM is created from shared governance functions within 36.09(5)—and given the countless student orgs that also endeavor to be “grassroots”—I am inclined to believe that ASM is designed to be the former of the two. It is only when these two are reconciled (most likely from a reduction in the “grassroots” mantra) that ASM will become truly effective.
That is not to say that there is no role for grassroots organizing. While I would like to see its role diminished, it is easy to see why it may have a purpose from time to time. Which brings me to conclusive point: grassroots organizing is only effective as a limited strategy or a tactic. When it becomes the objective, it has simply surpassed its position as a means to accomplishing something and become the end in itself. This may seem to be common sense, but the rhetoric that flies around ASM is strikingly contradictory. Many would have it so that ASM operated largely as a grassroots structure, but for reasons specified above, that doesn’t make any sense.
My hope in detailing this—what I see to be a fatal flaw—is not to destroy what many have come to think of as a vital component of this institution, but rather to show that it is largely hindering the organization. Past experience has shown that working with the administration can be far more effective than fighting it, and the same is true for the city level. There is only so much that a group of students can do before people begin to ignore them. After all, grass grows everywhere, so it is easy to forget that it’s there.
Madison Property Ratings = grassroots organizing. 100% founded as a structure outside ASM. Not directly relevant to your post, but important to note as it will grow in stature over the years as it is developed.
CB, is MPR truly grassroots or insofar as a few people interested in the idea worked together to pursue an avenue appropriate to facilitate its creation?
Perhaps my conception of “grassroots” is inaccurate, but the image that grassroots renders for me is a large/growing group of people pushing for something unattainable (at least relatively so) by other means.
Something can originate outside of an organization, in this case the student government, and be implemented without it being “grassroots” or can it not by definition?