Thinking out loud
On two different occasions in my (David’s) self created curriculum on community organizing at Metro State I was thrown into a role playing game that was designed to show students the challenge that NIMBYism and its opposed entity can create for those attempting to resolve a conflict in a neighborhood. The scenario was based on a real life model in South Minneapolis where a working class neighborhood was under the siege of decision makers who wanted to locate a home for chemically dependant people there.
Though I can’t say I really enjoyed this role-play, I was still willing to jump in headfirst. For I was armed with my miracle, cure-all role of community organizer’s duct tape; solutions based in citizenship. The first time I played the game it wasn’t too great of a challenge. The second time it was even easier. It was simply a matter of suggesting that the neighborhood residents welcome and treat the CD residents like family, share resources, and ultimately benefit from their presence. My utopian solution was enough to pacify my professors and impress some of my classmates.
Ironically, in the week that I had planned to get the word out about the block club I want to form (one that could lay a groundwork so that issues like these could be easily resolved should they arise) we got a flyer wedged in our door announcing that decision makers are looking at a property across the alley for the potential to host a home for disturbed youth. It may be a different population, but it has the same potential for NIMBYism.
Though I never really had any delusions of grandeur about my solution to the South Minneapolis problem, I had never really invested the time to think about how feasible it would be outside of the role-playing. It will always work in theory because it is such a good theory. Yet I am not so ignorant to think that everyone can be happy with a theory, even if my classmates were. Though if I ever wanted to test it, the potential may arise. Decisions haven’t been made yet. But in a crowd of NIMBYists at the meeting on Monday night I’m not going to be standing there quoting George Bush (“bring it on”). Especially since human nature has blessed me with a bit of NIMBYism too. The future is yet uncertain, and a time may come to put the theory to test. Even if the proposal isn’t shot down by me and my neighbors before it reaches the floor, I plan to stick to my duct tape. In fact, I have even begun to wonder if I would meet the qualifications for those who work with disturbed youth. After all, working there would meet my highest employment priority of working close to home.
Yet now I feel like I may be faced with a deadline for creating the block club. What’s worse is that those willing to participate may feel that it would be focused on a single issue. Once that issue is resolved, or left to its own fate, people may stop participating due what they may think is a lack of purpose or a feeling that organization has failed them. What I had anticipated as a relaxing and comfortable way to ease into my first non-academic attempt at community organizing could become one of the greater challenges I face in the field.
Though I can’t say I really enjoyed this role-play, I was still willing to jump in headfirst. For I was armed with my miracle, cure-all role of community organizer’s duct tape; solutions based in citizenship. The first time I played the game it wasn’t too great of a challenge. The second time it was even easier. It was simply a matter of suggesting that the neighborhood residents welcome and treat the CD residents like family, share resources, and ultimately benefit from their presence. My utopian solution was enough to pacify my professors and impress some of my classmates.
Ironically, in the week that I had planned to get the word out about the block club I want to form (one that could lay a groundwork so that issues like these could be easily resolved should they arise) we got a flyer wedged in our door announcing that decision makers are looking at a property across the alley for the potential to host a home for disturbed youth. It may be a different population, but it has the same potential for NIMBYism.
Though I never really had any delusions of grandeur about my solution to the South Minneapolis problem, I had never really invested the time to think about how feasible it would be outside of the role-playing. It will always work in theory because it is such a good theory. Yet I am not so ignorant to think that everyone can be happy with a theory, even if my classmates were. Though if I ever wanted to test it, the potential may arise. Decisions haven’t been made yet. But in a crowd of NIMBYists at the meeting on Monday night I’m not going to be standing there quoting George Bush (“bring it on”). Especially since human nature has blessed me with a bit of NIMBYism too. The future is yet uncertain, and a time may come to put the theory to test. Even if the proposal isn’t shot down by me and my neighbors before it reaches the floor, I plan to stick to my duct tape. In fact, I have even begun to wonder if I would meet the qualifications for those who work with disturbed youth. After all, working there would meet my highest employment priority of working close to home.
Yet now I feel like I may be faced with a deadline for creating the block club. What’s worse is that those willing to participate may feel that it would be focused on a single issue. Once that issue is resolved, or left to its own fate, people may stop participating due what they may think is a lack of purpose or a feeling that organization has failed them. What I had anticipated as a relaxing and comfortable way to ease into my first non-academic attempt at community organizing could become one of the greater challenges I face in the field.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home