the organizational politics of the asa

The Organiza t ional Poli t ics o f t he ASA

R m ~ a ~ CouaNs

The Amer ican Soctologtcal Assoctatton's Report on Future Organizat ional Trends arose f r o m worries that the ASA is disintegrating tnto a conglomerate o f mu tua l l y oblivious specialties. The prol t ferat ton o f sections was regarded as an aspect o f this disintegration that the ASA might be able to control B u t the commit tee charged wtth examin ing the prob lem o f sections con- cluded tha t section expansion has become a major f o r m o f pol i t ical mobi l i za t ion wi th in the as- sociation, a n d that sections act as a counterweight to the bureaucrat ic central izat ion o f the ASA as a whole. On balance, the commit tee opted f o r the local v i tal izat ion going on in sections as agains t the more abstract concerns o f the ASA central governtng bodies.

The ASA repor t on Future Organizational Trends g rew out of an issue that had been vo iced by a lot of sociologists in the last f ew years, and that finally got into discussions of the ASA Council. The w o r r y is that we have lost all c o h e r e n c e as a discipline; w e are breaking up into a cong lomera te of special- ties, each going its o w n w a y and wi th none too high regard for each other . This was c o n n e c t e d to the sense of the do ldrums that s eemed to hit our discipl ine in the 1980s: compla in ts that w e w e r e n ' t going anywhere , that no th ing added up, that mos t w o r k sociologists did was worthless . I th ink the issues w e r e c o n n e c t e d because the f ragmenta t ion made it easy for any partic- ular sociologist to have a low regard for everyone else in the field, whi le p ro tec t ing his or he r o w n ego. In effect one said: m y special ty is okay; I and my col leagues in (fill in the blank: sociology of gender , popu la t ion ecol- ogy of organizat ions, wor ld systems, emot ions , cul ture, etc.) are doing great, bu t as for the field as a whole , it 's a mess and might as wel l be abolished. What this really mean t was that you w o r k in your special ty and I w o r k in mine; and since I d o n ' t k n o w anyth ing about w h a t you ' r e doing I feel justified in calling the w h o l e th ing a vast waste land. It might be more accura te to say it is the

Randall Collins is professor of sociology at the University of California, Riverside. His books include W e b e r t a n Sociological Theory ( 1986), Theoret ical Sociology (1988), and Sociology o f M a r r i a g e a n d Family: Gender, Love a n d Proper ty (third edition co-authored with Scott Coltranc, 1990). Address cor re spondence to Department of Sociology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521.

Collir~ 311

T o w e r o f Babel; each specia l ty has evo lved its o w n technical i t ies and its o w n vocabulary , and w e literally don ' t unde r s t and w h a t each o t h e r is talking about .

In the ASA the issue came up in the form of the sect ions. The prol i fera t ion o f sec t ions really t o o k off in the late 1970s and onwards , even t h o u g h Associa- t ion m e m b e r s h i p as a w h o l e was dropping. Sect ions w e r e taking a b igger slice o f the p rog ram (up to abou t half) and b e c o m i n g m o r e aggressive abou t organ- izing thei r o w n activities. Here at least was someth ing c o n c r e t e w h e r e w e cou ld ge t a handle on the p r o b l e m of f ragmentat ion: if w e can do some th ing a b o u t the sect ions , w e can do someth ing to k e e p our discipl ine toge ther . The Counci l ' s d iscuss ions s h o w e d that this w o r r y was w ide ly shared. So it did w h a t the Counci l a lways does: it appo in t ed a commi t t ee .

Having o p e n e d m y m o u t h too m u c h during the discussion, I paid the usual p r i ce o f b e c o m i n g a p p o i n t e d chair o f the commi t t ee . At this po in t I was fully in a c c o r d w i t h the sen t iment that w e are breaking apart as a discipl ine, and that the ongo ing division of the ASA into sec t ions was just inst i tut ionalizing the breaks. Never the less , by the t ime our c o m m i t t e e had c o m e u p w i th its repor t , w e had p re t ty m u c h reversed this posi t ion. W e c o n c l u d e d that the sec t ions w e r e a democra t i z ing force wi th in the ASA, that t hey w e r e pu t t ing vitality back into it at the grass-roots level b y al lowing a h igher degree o f par t ic ipa t ion and a h igher level o f intel lectual exc i t ement .

H o w did this reversal c o m e about? I sugges t t w o main reasons. I will leave the s e c o n d reason for the end of this article and concen t r a t e on the first. This is tha t the c o m m i t t e e t i led to app ly sociological t heo ry to ou r p rob lem. As sociol- ogists w e k n o w a lot abou t the w a y organizat ions work , the w a y realities are c o n s t r u c t e d and polit ical interests are manifes ted. But usually as soon as w e get into a s i tuat ion o f organizat ional poli t ics w e act like any o t h e r naive actor. I have rarely heard anyone say anything sociological in a soc io logy d e p a r t m e n t meet ing , in a univers i ty or ASA commi t t ee , or on the Counci l o f the ASA or any o f its sect ions . W e forget all abou t the re levance o f w h a t w e k n o w to the situa- t ion right in f ront o f us, and w e go ahead and push our interests and ideologies , ignoring social s t ruc ture and micro- in teract ion alike. But in this case, ou r com- mi t t ee was de l ibera te ly set u p to involve special ists in theory , organizat ions, and poli t ical m o v e m e n t s (Ion Turner , Marshall Meyer, John McCarthy, Pam Ol- iver), and to turn ou r sociological insights on to w h a t was going on in the ASA. Maybe one cou ld say: w e pu t e n o u g h real egg-head intel lectuals on to the com- mi t t ee so that t hey might recognize the ASA's p r o b l e m s as akin to some th ing w e k n o w abou t e l sewhere .

In this light, the prol i fera t ion of sec t ions (and indeed the backlash against t he sec t ions) looks like s o m e familiar processes : bureaucra t iza t ion and the co mpe t i t i ve g r o w t h o f social m o v e m e n t s . If one digs into the h is tory o f bureau- cracies , one can see that no t only does size drive different iat ion, bu t that t he re is a ra tchet : d i f ferent ia t ion levels don ' t c o m e back d o w n if size falls. W e find the ra ther u n w e l c o m e pa t t e rn that b o t h confl ic t and democra t i za t ion drive bu-

312 The American Sociologlst/Winter 1990

reaucrat izat ion; organizat ions (especia l ly in the pub l i c sec tor ) are full o f off ices and p r o c e d u r e s that are the prec ip i ta tes o f past rebel l ions and pas t efforts to r e p r e s e n t the un rep re sen t ed . The ASA is full o f sec t ions n o w b e c a u s e the re was t r e m e n d o u s mobi l iza t ion in the 1970s and subsequen t ly ; the re have b e e n social m o v e m e n t s b o t h inside and ou ts ide the ASA w h i c h have b e c o m e institutional- ized in enc laves wi th in it. Marxist, peace , e thnic , g e n d e r and env i ronmenta l m o v e m e n t s have b e e n s t rong among sociologis ts and have buil t thei r o w n sec- tions. At the same t ime, social m o v e m e n t s p r o v o k e o t h e r social m o v e m e n t s ; so that n e w intel lectual m o v e m e n t s wi th in the discipl ine (cul ture , emot ions , m i c r o c o m p u t i n g , e tc . ) have also c o m e to take it as the normal p r o c e d u r e to or- ganize the i r o w n sec t ions too.

From this po in t o f v i e w the c o m m i t t e e on ASA organizat ional t rends had to con f ron t the fact that the sec t ions as social m o v e m e n t organizat ions w e r e be ing success fu l b y provid ing solidari ty on a smaller scale than the ASA was provid ing on the large scale. The sect ions, w i th thei r prizes, publ ica t ions , mini- c o n f e r e n c e s ( some t imes away f rom the ASA mee t ing itself), cocktai l part ies, and even thei r confl ic ts w i th the ASA bureaucracy , are genera t ing just the sense o f par t ic ipat ion and g roup m e m b e r s h i p that ASA m e m b e r s have b e e n com- plaining t hey miss in the mass impersonal i ty o f the larger organizat ion.

The ve ry fact that the centra l bod ies of the ASA have b e e n struggling w i t h the sec t ions also makes sense f rom the po in t o f v i e w o f bureaucra t i c poli t ics. For it hasn ' t b e e n just the sec t ions that have prol i ferated. There has b e e n a large g r o w t h in ASA execu t ive off ice staff, and a m u s h r o o m i n g o f all kinds o f ASA commi t t ee s . Bear in mind this is no t an ef fec t o f g rowing size: the ASA w e n t into a sharp dec l ine in m e m b e r s h i p in the mid-1970s, and still has no t c o m e back near its peak. The w h o l e organizat ion has b e c o m e full o f specia l ized of- rices, prol i ferat ing rules and regulations, carrying ou t p ro jec t s increasingly au- t o n o m o u s f rom the original mission of the associat ion, w h i c h was to facilitate profess iona l c o m m u n i c a t i o n th rough mee t ings and journals. The ASA n o w gives ou t research grants and minor i ty fe l lowships , sells t each ing aids and di- rec tor ies , lobb ies in Washington , arranges foreign visits, and manages invest- ments . A po r t i on of its activit ies go increasingly into raising ou t s ide sou rces of m o n e y and poli t ical suppor t , w h i c h make the ASA b u r e a u c r a c y less amenab le to internal con t ro l b y the member sh ip . (Stra ightforward r e sou rce d e p e n d e n c y t h e o r y o f p o w e r appl ies here . )

At this point , the ASA's s t ructure as a membersh ip-cont ro l led d e m o c r a c y c o m e s into confl ict w i th its bureaucrat ic specialization. Remember , democrat iza- t ion t h rows up more bureauc racy in its wake. As the organization tries to get more and more activities unde r c o n t r o l - a n d to represen t m o r e and more g roups in its decision-making--it c reates more and more commit tees , longer and longer lists o f rules and regulations. As the sect ions get bigger, the commi t t ee to regulate the sec t ions has more and more to do. Budgetary ques t ions b e c o m e a wrangle over w h o gets w h a t and w h o will pay for it; and since the sec t ions have their o w n

Collins 313

dues-eas i ly taxable by the ASA--that becomes a major point of con ten t ion be- t w e e n the decentral ized and centralized parts o f the organization.

We should no t reify this situation. It is the same democra t iza t ion (and the same bureaucra t iza t ion) cut t ing bo th ways. In fact the same people w h o orga- nize the sect ions are also appo in ted to commi t t ees o f the central organizat ion. The peop le w h o sit on the commi t t ee to regulate the sect ions, and those w h o make the budge t that taxes the sections, are also member s o f the sect ions. It is the local con t ex t that makes the difference. W h e n w e sit in one room, con- s t ruc t ing the reality of being the ASA committee-on-this-or-that , w e sudden ly take on the interests of making sure our p o w e r is respec ted , our far-seeing ide- als are met . Probably w e never t hough t about these organiza t ionwide issues be- fore w e wa lked into the room. We only th ink about the danger o f the sect ions to our unif ied organizat ion w h e n we get into that ri tualized e n c o u n t e r in w h i c h w e enac t the unif ied organizat ion for a f ew hours. Later in the same evening, w e might go to the sect ion cocktail par ty and complain about the w a y the ASA is cons t r ic t ing our act ions and taking our dues.

This is a genu ine organizational di lemma. I have never me t anyone in the ASA w h o is in favor o f elitism; almost everyone makes the i r proposals in the name of increasing democracy . It is just a ques t ion of w h e r e the ins t ruments o f this de- m o c r a c y are to be located. W h e n w e sit on a central ASA body, w e feel tha t the organizat ion as a w h o l e ought to ensure eve rybody equal par t ic ipat ion, that w e ough t to keep informal groups f rom set t ing up the i r o w n panels, creat ing the i r o w n separate meet ings w h i c h are not open to all, that the sect ions ough t to be regula ted in the name of openness and uniformity. W h e n we mee t our fr iends in our sect ion, we feel that d e m o c r a c y exists here face-to-face w h e r e w e can spon taneous ly fo l low our o w n initiative, and get away f rom the bureaucra t ic regulat ions imposed by some faceless commit tee . Central ized d e m o c r a c y and decent ra l ized democracy find each o the r the source o f the i r problems. Each sees the o t h e r as hopeless ly f r agmented and ant i-democrat ic . Each feeds on the o ther . The more tha t sect ions demons t ra t e tha t social m o v e m e n t s w i th in the ASA can provide an int imate haven against the impersonal i ty and rule-bounded- hess o f the whole , the more they grow, and the more the enac tors of the central s t ruc ture feel the need to conta in the sections.

I said earlier there w e r e t w o main reasons w h y the ASA Counci l ' s commi t t ee on fu ture organizat ional t rends reversed its posit ion, start ing out as anti-section and end ing by more or less endors ing the sect ions as a democra t iz ing move- m e n t w i th in the association. As noted , the first reason is that our theore t ica l analysis led us into the p rob lem of bureaucrat ic politics; and qui te frankly w e e n d e d on the side w h i c h s eemed to us to provide at least t empora ry rel ief f rom o v e r w h e l m i n g bureaucracy. The second reason is more ad hominem. Every m e m b e r o f the counci l ' s commi t t ee has been active in the sect ions, indeed has b e e n chair o f at least one sect ion. You might say the commi t t ee was loaded to go in the d i rec t ion it did. But cons ider a little further. Everyone on the Commit- tee on Future Trends had also been on numerous bodies of the central organ-

314 The American Sociologist/Winter 1990

ization, sat on all sorts o f commi t t ee s regulat ing this and p romot ing representa- t ion in that.

There was really no w a y to avoid this. Half of the ASA m e m b e r s h i p be longs to at least one sect ion, and a quar ter belongs to two or more sections. More- over, this is p re t ty cer ta inly the segment of the organizat ion that is active in all its affairs, centra l ized and decent ra l ized alike; only 35 pe r cen t o f the member- ship votes in ASA elect ions, and about the same p ropor t i on a t tends its meet- ings. It is ourselves in our different situational roles w h o are f ight ing over h o w to run the association. So if the commi t t ee w h i c h the counci l (full of m e m b e r s o f sect ions) appo in t ed in its worr ies about the sect ions spli t t ing the associa- t ion, t u rned out to be full of member s of the sect ions, and e n d e d up repor t ing in favor o f the sect ions, w h a t does this mean? I th ink it means tha t w e have had expe r i ence on bo th sides o f the ba t t leground, and w e k n o w w h i c h one w e pre- fer. Our theore t ica l analysis shows us that the confl ic t b e t w e e n central izat ion and decentra l iza t ion feeds on i*.self and offers no final solutions. Our gut-level feel ing tells us that c o m p a r e d to sitting on the ASA's centra l ized commit tees , w e get more en joymen t f rom w h a t happens in the sections.

Collins 315