fem mixed genderorgs

8/3/2019 Fem Mixed Genderorgs

1/16

Gender and Race in a Pro-Feminist, Progressive, Mixed-Gender, Mixed-Race OrganizationAuthor(s): Susan A. OstranderSource: Gender and Society, Vol. 13, No. 5 (Oct., 1999), pp. 628-642Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/190326 .

Accessed: 05/06/2011 10:55

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Gender and

Society.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sagehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/190326?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sagehttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sagehttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/190326?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage


2/16

GENDERAND RACEINA PRO-FEMINIST,PROGRESSIVE,MIXED-GENDER,MIXED-RACEORGANIZATION

SUSANA. OSTRANDERTuftsUniversity

Feminist researchers have urged more study of howfeminist practice is actually accomplished inmixed-genderorganizations.Social movement cholars have calledfor moreattention o dynamicsofgenderand race in social movement rganizations, speciallyto thechallenges ofmaintaining nternalsolidarity.Basedonfield observations n a pro-feminist,progressive,mixed-gender,mixed-racesocialmovementorganization, his articleexaminesorganizationaldecision-making rocesses and interper-sonal and group dynamics.Genderedand racializedpatternsof subordination re bothverymuch inevidence and-at the sametime-actively challenged n thisorganization.Theauthorarguesthatpro-feminist andprogressiveorganizationalpractices ndefforts o createsolidarityacrossgenderand racecan existthrough ompetingandcontradictory ynamicsandongoingstruggles.Complexandinconsis-tentdynamicsaround hese social barriersarelikelyto occurinorganizationsmoregenerallyandneedto be a subject or more research.

Current thinkingaboutgenderin organizationshas primarilydevelopedeitherfromstudies of male-dominated,mixed-genderorganizationsn whichwomen area subordinatedminority Blum 1991;Cockburn1991;Moss Kantor1977;FainsodKatzenstein1995; Roth 1998) or from studies of single-sex women's organiza-tions. Most of these women's organizationshave been white women's organiza-tions (Arnold1995;Bordt1997;Iannelo1992;Morgen1995;Tom 1995). Only afew researchershave studied women-of-color organizations(McNair Barnett1995) or attendedclosely to differences between women-of-color and whitewomen's organizations Poster 1995).The organization studied s pro-feminist,mixedgender(withwomen a slightmajority),and mixed race (with representation f people of color rangingfromone-third o two-thirdsn differentpartsof theorganization).People'sCommunityFund s a25-year-oldpublicfoundation r"public harity"n Bostonwhose overallmissionis tochangethe distribution f wealthandpower nsocietyand ochallengesome fundamentalaspectsof current ocial structureand distributionof societalrewards.

REPRINTREQUESTS:SusanA. Ostrander,Department f Sociology,TuftsUniversity,Medford,MA02155; e-mail:[email protected]& SOCIETY,Vol. 13No. 5, October1999 628-642? 1999 Sociologists for Women n Society628


3/16

Ostrander MIXED-GENDER, IXED-RACE RGANIZATION 629

One of themajoraimsof my studywas to investigaterelationsof race,gender,and class. (Fora discussion of class relationsatthePeople'sCommunityFundandfor othermajoraims of theresearch, ee Ostrander 995.)In thisarticle,I focus ongender and race. Social movementscholars have suggested that more attentionneeds to be paidto internaldynamicsand conflicts in social movementorganiza-tions, especially to the challengesof maintaining nternalsolidarity n the face ofpotentiallydivisive issues of race, gender,and class (Roth 1998, 143). Using anactive notionof "structure"evelopedbyGiddens 1987), I show howpeopleatthePeople's CommunityFund create, maintain,and-most important-simultane-ously contesthow genderand racerelationsare structuredhere(Anderson1996,738; Giddens1987). I also show how solidarityacross social barrierss developedandcontinued n the face of threats o solidarity.I aim to contribute o anunderstanding f the "challenges hatfeministsface inmixed-gender[and mixed-race]organizations" Roth 1998, 130) and how they"actuallyaccomplishwhattheydo"(Roth1998, 143).People's CommunityFundcan be seen as a feministorganization. tsmission,goals, andactivitiesrecognizethatwomen areoppressedrelative o menand thatwomen'spositionis "shapedbyprocessesof structuralnequality,not individualactionsor circumstances"YanceyMartin1990, 184). The People's CommunityFund has "a vision of society thatdoes not [yet]exist and sees social,politicalandeconomicchangeas necessaryforthat vision to be realized" YanceyMartin1990, 184). Since improvingwomen'scircumstances s only one of the fund'sgoals, along with improvingthe circum-stances of people of color,low-incomeandworking-classpeople, gays and lesbi-ans, and people with disabilities,I have chosen to name the organizationpro-feminist.Here,Iamfollowingthethinkingof scholarswho see feminism as "oneofmultiplemovements"-including those thatemphasizerace andclass along withgender(Poster1995, 659).I arguethat the myriadand complex ways this organization s genderedandracializedrepresentwocompeting endencies hatare, nmyview,not inconsistentwith a claim of being pro-feministandprogressive n a mixed-genderand mixed-race context. The firsttendencywas a subordination f women,especially womenof color,whichmightbe expectedin more mainstreamorganizations hat are nei-therprogressivenor feminist. This tendencythreatened nternalsolidarityacrossgenderandrace. The second tendencywas a well-establishedpatternof activelychallenginggenderandracialsubordination. hiscompeting endencyreflectedanorganizationaldynamic of cross-genderand cross-racesolidaritythat might beexpectedin aprogressive eministorganization.To explicate these two competingtendencies,I organize my dataaround woquestions: 1) Howwere thechangesmade nthe staff-collectiveandoverallorgan-izational decision makingduringthe periodof my researchgenderedand racial-ized?(2) How wereinterpersonal ynamicsandmodes of interactionbetween indi-viduals and groups gendered and racialized? Before addressing these twoquestions, I briefly describe the People's CommunityFund and how I did myresearch here.


4/16

630 GENDER&SOCIETY October1999

DESCRIPTION OF THE FUNDPeople's CommunityFund s a publicfoundation stablished n Boston in 1974and devoted to providingfinancialsupport n the form of grantsto communityorganizations ngaged n grassrootsorganizing orprogressive ocial change.(Fora discussion of organizing,see, e.g., Bobo, Kendall,andMax 1991.) Money foroperatingexpenses of the People's CommunityFundand for grantscomes fromindividualdonors,manyof them with inheritedwealth. (Formorediscussion ofthis, see Ostrander1995.) By the timeI completedmy research n May 1992, thePeople's CommunityFund hadgiven awaymore than$7 millionin grants.In the

early 1990s, the People's CommunityFundgave away approximately$400,000eachyearto local communitygroupsworkingon issues of peaceand internationalsolidarity, workers' rights, housing and homelessness, environmentand safeenergy,health, antiracism,gay and lesbianrights,women'srights,anddisabilityrights.ThePeople'sCommunityFunddefined ts missionat the time of myresearchascreating,boththroughts grantsand ts own internal tructure, democratic ystembased on collectiveownershipandcontrolof resources;anequitabledistribution fwealth andpower;an end of allexploitationof somepeoplebyothers;andfreedomfrom the oppressionsof class, race,ethnicity,gender,and sexual orientation.I call whatthePeople'sCommunityFunddoes "socialmovementphilanthropy"(Ostrander1995). The importanceof monetarysupport or sustainingmovementorganizingactivity s nowwidely acknowledgedby social movementactivistsandscholars (Buechler 1993; Jenkins 1987; McCarthyand Zald 1977). Money isrequired o meetmaintenanceneeds of social movementorganizations ndpayforsustainedorganizingandprotest(HunterandStaggenborg1986, 173).Membersof historicallymarginalized roupsarepresent n highnumbersatthePeople's CommunityFund comparedto most mixed-race,mixed-class, mixed-genderprogressive ocialchangeorganizationsDelgado1986).The level of repre-sentationof marginalizedgroupsis consistentwith the fund's mission to createthroughits own internalstructure as well as its grantmaking) a society thatopposesthemultipleoppressionsof class,race,ethnicity,gender,andsexualorien-tation.In 1990,whenI beganmy research,a surveyby a staffmembershowed thatof the 54 membersof nineregionalfundingboards,3 of 5 memberswere women,and 2 in 5 were people of color. The governingboard consisted of five whitewomen, four white men, fourmen of color, andone womanof color. The boardquicklydefinedthis approximately ne-thirdrepresentation f people of color asinsufficient.By 1992,therewerefive women of color,threewhitewomen,twomenof color,andone whiteman-a representationf nearly wo-thirdspeopleof color.Typicallytheboard ncludedtwo or threeopenlygay or lesbianmembers.In 1990,therewere six staffmembers:hreewhitewomen(onelesbian),oneAfri-canAmericanwoman,andtwo men of color(oneAsianAmerican,oneLatino).Bythe endof myresearch n 1992,therewere six womenon staff:four white(twoles-bians)andtwo AfricanAmerican(one lesbian).Delgado claims that a paid staff


5/16

Ostrander / MIXED-GENDER, MIXED-RACE ORGANIZATION 631

madeup entirelyof women is not unusual n progressivesocial change organiza-tions (Delgado 1986, 191).WhileIdidnot have accessto allof Haymarket's onors,of the 25 donorsIcameto knowby name,18 werewhitewomen,all from nheritedwealth.Whilethispor-tion of women donorsis somewhathigherthanmightbe expected,anecdotalevi-dence suggests that donorswho give to progressive unding organizationsnation-ally are morelikely to be women.

METHODFromFebruary1990 to May 1992, I did intensivefield observationresearchatthePeople'sCommunityFund.I attendedandtook detailednotesat more than300hours of meetings;conducted40 in-depth nterviews with boardmembers,staff,and donors;had innumerable nformalconversations;and reviewed documentsbackto 1974. I was presentatmeetingswheregrantsweremade,meetingsof thegoverningboardandboardcommittees,staffmeetings,annualmeetings,anddonormeetings. I readgrantproposalsandfollow-up reportssubmittedby communitygroups.Only individualdonorfiles wereclosed to me, andtheywere off-limitsto

everyone except staff who dealtdirectlywithdonors.The mode of analysisI used to make sense of voluminous ield notes,interviewtranscripts,and copies of documentsis consistent with establishedmethods ofqualitative esearchand thegenerationof grounded heory.Itrepresentsneitheranobjectivewrite-upof researchdatanor a purely subjective nterpretation f thatdata.It consistsof repeated eviews of writtenmaterials,developmentof themes orpatterns hatemergefromthosematerials,andthesystematicuse of themes ascod-ing categoriesto organizeananalyticnarrativeGlaserand Strauss1967).Consis-tent withgrounded heory,I sharedwithmy subjectsdraftsof papersandmy 1995bookfromtheproject,and I incorporatedheiradditionsandrevisions.I didnotdothatfor this article since it follows publicationof my book.Togain access, I approached staffmemberI knewslightlyfromfeminist cir-cles in the city. I told her,andsubsequently he governingboard,that I wanted tostudythe People'sCommunityFund as anexampleof social changephilanthropytodevelop generalguidelinesfordoing progressivephilanthropy.Gainingapprovalwas facilitatedby afamiliarity hatafew peopletherehad withmy earlierresearch,which is critical of upper-classwomen'sphilanthropyormaintainingand ustify-ing class privilegeand domination Ostrander 984).Peopleat thePeople's Com-munityFundcorrectlysaw thisresearchas supportiveof theirprojectof creatingaprogressivephilanthropyhatchallengessocial inequalities.While I had no previ-ous involvementatthe People's CommunityFund,access was also helped by myactivismin feminist andprogressivecircles. As they met me, people there often"checkedout"who I knew thattheyalso knew fromthese circles.Contributingovalid findingsas well as to open access, people at the People's CommunityFundtold me thatmy promiseof individualconfidentialitycontributed o theirtalking


6/16

632 GENDER & SOCIETY / October 1999

freely with me. Havingshared nformation hattheyobservedI did notpass on toothersin the organization, ome told me they had noticedthatI kepttheirconfi-dences,andtheynoticedthatothersspokeopenlyeven when I was takingdetailednotes, creatingan atmosphereof shared rust(Ostrander1995, 172-74). The factthatmost of my observationswere at meetingswhere others also took notes alsocontributedo my access and thecompletenessandaccuracyof field notes.OpenaccessandongoingdialoguebetweenmeandpeopleatthePeople'sCom-munityFund aboutmy researchdid not, of course,meanthatthere were no chal-lenges.TheyearsI spentdoingfieldwork ntheorganizationwerefraughtwith tur-moil andmajorchange,andI sometimes felt pressured o "takesides"(Ostrander1995, 175).On thewhole,however, helargerprojectout of whichthis articlecomeswas one of collaboration nd mutualrespectbetweenresearcher ndsubjects.

ENDING THE STAFF COLLECTIVEANDMODIFYING A CONSENSUALPROCESSPeople at the People's CommunityFund believedthat feminism andfeministshadbeencritically mportantn establishinghow theirorganizationwas structuredand theprocessit hadhistoricallyused to makedecisions.White menandwomenwere somewhatmorelikely to talkexplicitlyaboutthis feminist connectionthanpeopleof color.A white womanwhowas a memberof thegoverningboardandwhohas been involved there almostsince its foundingmore thantwo decades earliertold me, "I think[thePeople'sCommunityFund] s strongly nfluencedby femi-nism.... There'san organizational cceptanceof feministprinciples."A wealthywhitemanwhohaslong been amajordonorsaid,"[The]collective ..., theculture,theprocess,thenonhierarchicaltructure.... All of thatcomesout of feministprin-ciples."Anotherwhite mandonorsaid,"Thesuccess of [thePeople'sCommunity

Fund]owes a tremendous mount ofeminism.Women'senergyhelpedunleash t."Similarto otherprogressiveorganizations ounded in the 1970s, the People'sCommunityFund nitially operatedn a largely nformalcollectiveandconsensualmannerconsistentwith(thoughnotuniqueto) early principlesof feministprocess(Ferguson1984;Iannelo1992;Mansbridge1994;Rothschild-Whitt 979;Sirianni1994;YanceyMartin1990).Ideally,decisionsweremadeby consensusinstead ofvote;a stafforganizedas a collectivemadeat least some effort to sharetasksin anonhierarchicalmanner,with everyonedoing some aspectof every kind of task;overall organizationalpolicy makingwas locally based in regionalboards;anddirectparticipation f thewhole wasmaximized n semiannualand,morerecently,annualmeetingsopen to all.ThePeople'sCommunityFundrevised his modeof operatingduring heperiodof myresearch.Two of themostimportant hangeswereendingthe staffcollectiveand creatinga single governingboardwith overallorganizational uthority.Theway thosechangesoccurredandthe reasonspeople gave for themwere, as I willshow,highly genderedandracialized.


7/16


These changes took place because people at the People's CommunityFundincreasinglysaw problemswith a collective, consensual,anddirect-participatorywayof operating.As insimilarorganizations,herewere difficultiesmaking imelyandfirmpolicy decisions,as well as delineatingandcarryingoutspecific tasksastheorganizationgrewin size andcomplexity(Alter 1998,262). Echoinga conclu-sion thatpeople at thePeople'sCommunityFundcameto,JoanAcker(1995, 141)says, "Some division of laborand allocationof authorityandresponsibilityarenecessary-given the social relations in which we are all embedded-to reachorganizinggoals."Thechangesmeant hat hePeople'sCommunityFundbecamea"modifiedcollective"withina "structuralybrid" Gelb 1995, 130).People in thisorganizationset out "to sustain their original commitments to organizationaldemocracybut also to operatemoreeffectivelyandefficiently"(Gelb 1995, 130).Illustratinghe"hybrid"orm,the shift from a direct-participatoryorm of democ-racyin theopen-to-allsemiannualmeetingsto arepresentativeorm of democracyin the single governingboardstill retaineda local base since the new board con-sisted of representatives rom the fund's nine local grant-makingboardsaroundNew England.Anotherreasonfor theorganizational hangeswasa growingawarenessamongstaff and boardduring hisperiodthat the time and emotional nvestmentrequiredto make decisions collectively andconsensuallyhadthe unintended onsequenceof excludingor marginalizingpeople of color andlow-incomepeople, who weremorelikely thanwhitesto have neither he hoursnorthepoliticalinclination o usetheirenergiesin this intensivemanner Freeman1975, 123-26).Italso became evi-dent to staff and boardthat a lack of clear directionfrom some official authoritycould result in staff of color feeling suppressed,particularly-as I will show-when theytook a view counter o thatof establishedwhites.Events reacheda particularlydifficultpoint in 1991, when financialcontribu-tions declined(temporarily, s it turnedout),anda man of color on staffresignedover a conflict aboutfund-raisingmethods.While the conflict was not explicitlyaboutraceorgender, tbecamehighlyracializedandgendered,and tdeeplythreat-ened internalorganizational olidarity.Theconflictbecameespeciallyembitteredbetween this man and two white women who were longtimefund-raisers or theorganization. n theface of a staffdisputeof crisisproportions,hese threestaffallfelt theyhad nowhereto go for supportorresolution.Membersof thegoverningboard hought hat hetwo whitewomenfund-raisershad too muchpower n theorganization incetheywere the mainpeoplewhodeter-mined how themoneywas raisedandfromwhom.Boardmembers-both men andwomen,whiteandof color,butespeciallymen of color-perceived areluctanceonthe partof these two women to changetheirmethodsof fund-raisingand a reluc-tance to relinquish the close relationshipswith wealthy white women donorsthroughwhich these boardmembersfelt the two women gainedtheirpower.Theman of color on staff who eventuallyresignedobjectedto whathe saw as raisingmoney solely on the basis of personalrelationshipswithdonors.He wanted nsteadto institute new fund-raisingmethods that were "morepolitical."He talked of


8/16


"donororganizing"around he organization'spolitical goals as a way to bringinnew donors,especiallydonorsof color. Indicativeof thecomplicateddynamics nthisorganization, oardmemberswhowere mostoutspokenabout heimbalanceofpoweramongthe threestaff andthe roletheybelieved tplayed ntheman-of-colorstaffer's leaving includedtwo men of color and two wealthy white upper-classdonorsto the organization,one man andone woman.What others saw as two whitewomenhavingtoo muchpower,thetwo womenthemselves saw as havingtoo muchresponsibility.Theyconnectedthis to genderandracein awaythatwas indicativebothof how work n theorganizationwasgen-dered andof how limitedand nconsistent eelingsof solidarityorsharedresponsi-bilitybetween white womenandwomen of color were in theorganization.One ofthese white women staff said duringa meeting,"Ifpeople putajob on the table,who volunteers?Thewhitegirls!It hasto do withbeinghere a long time,and withclass and sex. It's a reallybaddynamic."The otherwomanagreed:"I ust take on[work],or else it wouldn'tget done."One of the main reasonsthese two womenwanted o endthe staff collectiveandhiretheorganization'sirstexecutivedirectorwas theirdesiretobe relievedof whattheyfelt was anunreasonableandgendered)burdenof responsibility heycarried n the organization. n addition o havinganexecutivedirectorto takeon some of thatburden, hey wanted to involve boardmembers more in raising money duringa time when contributions eemed to bedeclining.Partof thedifference n responsibilitybetweenwomenand men staffreflectedthesheerpredominance f women,as is apparentlyrueof mostprogressiveorgani-zations (Delgado 1986, 191). Onepossible account for the abundanceof womenrelated o how thePeople'sCommunityFundtended,at leastduring he 1980s andearly 1990s,to raise ts money.Methodsof fund-raising eflecteda familiargenderpattern n which women staff fund-raisers egularlyperformed"emotion labor"(Hochschild1983, 153) and"sociabilitywork" Daniels 1985, 363-64, 372). Thework of creatingandmaintainingpersonaland social connections-in this case,with mostly women wealthy donors-constructed an atmosphereof "pleasanttransactions"Hochschild1983, 153)in whichdonorswerewillingtobepresent, oparticipate, nd to feel at ease (Daniels1985,363). Not surprisingly,his relationalapproach o raisingmoney,basedin emotionalconnectionsand bondsof sociabil-ity,meant hat und-raisingwasimplicitlydefinedas "women'swork"andcarriedalowerstatusthanwhatwas seen as the "morepolitical"work of grantmaking.Thetwo womenstaff fund-raiserswere well awareof thispoliticalhierarchybetweengrantmakingandfund-raising.They were eagerto havemen on the boarddoingmorefund-raisingas a way to raise the status of their work.Thestrongagreementof thetwo white women stafferswith thegoverningboardaboutendingthe staffcollectiveand nvolvingboardmembersmore nfund-raisingcreatedsome organizationalolidarityacrossrace andgender.Thepeopleof coloronthe boardhaddifferentreasonsforsupportinghese twochanges.While the twowhite women staffwanted o sharewith the board he burdenof responsibility or


9/16


raising money, people of color on the boardsaw their increased involvement infund-raisingpartlyas a way to get morepowerin the organization.They hopedtoincreasetheirpowerbothbybringing n more new donorsof colorandby associat-ingwith currentwealthywhite donorswhotheysaw asexercisingpowerbehind hescenes.

Perhapsmostimportant, overningboardmembers-both whiteandof color-saw thehiringof anexecutivedirectorascreatinga moreformalizedorganizationalstructure hat would betterprotectandsupport taff of color,suchas the man whohadresignedunderbittercircumstances.While someevidence from otherresearchsuggeststhatwomenof colorpreferacollective nonhierarchical emocratic tyleintheir own organizations(Poster 1995), others have suggested-consistent withthe fund's experience-that people of color in mixed-race organizationsmayinstead need a more formal structure o preventracializedpatternsof white domi-nance from prevailing (Freeman 1975, 123-26; Mansbridge 1994, 547-48;Rothschild-Whitt1979, 520). This view was takenespecially by two outspokenmenof color on thegoverningboardbut also-in animportantnstanceof race andgendersolidarity-by severalwhites,mostnotablyhigh-leveldonors,one manandone woman. Womenof color on the governingboard,while less outspoken,alsosupportedhiringan executivedirector.In contrast to the sharedagreementacross race and genderon the governingboardaboutendingthe staff collective andhiringa director, wo womenregionalfundingboardmembersfromoutside Boston-one white,one of color-objectedstronglyto this decisionbythegoverningboard.Theyspokeout at anannualmeet-ing in which all thepeople involved at thePeople's CommunityFundwereinvitedtocome, sayingthatthe decision was intolerable o them.Theysawit asa violationof theprinciple hat"wemakethe revolutionby livingit."Thesetwo womensubse-quently left thatmeeting and the organization n protest, though they failed in ahalf-hearted ffortto taketheir ocal fund and tsdonorswiththem.Thestrengthoftheir objectionsand their withdrawal rom the organizationsuggest the tenuouslevel of solidaritynecessaryfor the organization o do its work.Inthecourseof discussionsaboutthestaffcollective,questionsaroseaboutthelong-standingfeminist-definedconsensus mode of decision making. This issuewas actuallymore divisive thanthe one aboutendingthe staff collective. Twomenof color who weremembersof the governingboardtook a strong positionon theissue, arguing hat consensus decisionmakingtooktoo much time and thatvotingwas a more efficient and effectiveway to makedecisions. Severalwhite women,from bothstaffandboard,objected o whattheysaw asmore and more reliance onformalvoting. Theyconsidered his a violation oforganizational ndfeministprin-ciples. One womangoverningboardmembersaid,

I thinkwe do consensuswhenwe'recomfortablendvote whenwe'renot.We'vedone a lot morevotinglatelybecausethe decisions aregettingtougher .. we coulduse some trainingon consensus.


10/16


A woman staff memberadded,"I'd ike to see thisissue notignored.It is apoliticaldiscussion."Anotherwomanstafferpointedout thegenderingof thedisagreement:"[There] s clearly a division between women and men [on this issue], and thatrarelyhappensat [thePeople's CommunityFund]."Discussion aboutconsensus-baseddecisionmakingbecameespeciallyheatedatthe 1992annualmeeting,whena whitewomanboardmember aid,referring spe-cially to thebehaviorof the two men of color who had takenastrongposition,"We[women]raisethe consensus ssues,andmen start haking heirheadssaying, 'Oh,no, not thatagain!'That'sverysexistbehavior,and treallypisses me off."Largelyat the insistenceof mostlywhitewomen on bothboardandstaff,amodifiedconsen-susdecision-makingprocesswasretainedbythegoverningboard.Mostof themen,bothwhiteandof color,wouldhavepreferredmakingdecisionsin a waycloser to a"voting"method.Womenof colortended n thissituation oplayamediatingrole,seeminglyunwillingto ally themselveseitherwith men(whiteor of color) orwithwhite women.

People in this organizationmodified an originalcommitment to what somemightconsider"pure"eminist structure ndprocesswhile stillmanaging o retainessentialaspectsof their commitment o organizational emocracy.Theydid thisby creatingwhatsome have called a hybridorganizationalorm.As Acker(1995,141)puts t, the revisionof feministprocesstoward ncreased ormalization f allo-cating work andmakingdecisions "does not mean that feministorganizersmustabandon ffortstokeephierarchyo a minimumandcreate avorable onditions ordemocraticparticipation."Recent researchby otherssuggests that,like the Peo-ple's CommunityFund,mostwomen'sorganizationshatstartedout committed ostaff collectives have since become less concernedwith structureand more con-cernedwith strategy Bordt1997, 12). Their new overallorganizational"hybrid"forms "combine n innovativewaysthe bestcharacteristics f both[collectivesandbureaucracies]"Bordt1997, 10).

GENDERED AND RACIALIZEDDYNAMICS:EXPRESSION AND CHALLENGESGenderandrace dynamicsoccasionallyoccurredat the People's CommunityFund thatpeople there consideredoppressiveandinappropriate. hese dynamicsweretypicallychallengedandcountered,oftenin ways that crossedrace andgen-der lines.Forexample,duringonemeetingof the Bostonfundingboard,a white mankepttalkingwhile a woman-of-colormemberattempted epeatedly o speak.Gradually,she seemed to give in. In an illustrationof cross-racecross-gendersolidarity,anotherwhite manintervened, ayingtoher,"Justumpinhere.Shutthisguy up!"She hesitatedatfirst,thenopenlychallenged he man whohadnotbeenlisteningtoher. She counteredhis view thataparticular ommunitygroupshouldnot be inter-viewed for a possible grant,asserting,"I'd like to talkwith them,"and her view


11/16


prevailed.Perhaps permanentlyempowered,this same woman challenged thissame white man at a latermeeting and argued successfully again for a granttoanothercommunitygroupshe favoredand he did not.On anotheroccasion, the same white maninterrupted white womanfundingboardmemberas she reportedon a groupshe wantedto interviewfor a grant.Thesame whitemanwho facilitatedearlierdidso againandtoldhim,"Bequiet.Letherdo thesummary." he board ateragreedwith herview andgavethegroupagrant.The whiteman whooften facilitatedmeetingsduring hoseyearsregularlymadeit apointto call on women andmen of color who had notyet voiced theiropinions.He also sometimesremainednoticeablyquiethimself,even whendirectlyaskedbyanotherwhite manwhathethought.His silence seemed intendedas aninvitation oothers to speak. When I interviewed him, he suggested intentionalityin hisbehavior:

It'sa competitionometimestospeak],and t affectspeopleof colormostly....Given hehistoric atterns,t'seasier oruswhitemen ojust ump n.An expressionof this "historicpattern" nda challengeto it occurredduringameetingin whichsix newfundingboardmemberswere firstpresent.All werepeo-ple of color,five women and one man.Tensionarose between the sametwo whitemen about how to conduct the meeting. One proposed, "Let's finish by oneo'clock,"andthe otherobjectedby sayingtherewerenewpeople present.Hurryingalongwould makeit harderorthemtofully learn he board'swayof operating.Hestatedfirmly,"We needto go through he process,"and his view prevailed.When I later interviewedthe white man who had insisted on takingthe timeneededfor new boardmembers,he spokeaboutthe importanceof old-timeboardmembersholdingbackto makespacefor newcomers,and he said, "I think we allrecognizedwe hadto diversifythe board.We all spenttimelookingfor newfolks.There was a strongcommitment o makingit happen."WhenI spokewith the otherwhite manwho had wanted o movequicklyto fin-ish the meeting,he also seemed atfirst to share thisunderstanding.He toldme,"[There asatimewhen]t seemedikethewhiteswere ncharge,ikethepeopleofcolorwereustsittingn.... The wowhiteguys[includingme] alkalot.[Theotherwhiteman] s always ellingmeto shutup,and hat'shealthy.... Wedointimidatepeople, o wehad oaddsomepeopleof color.

But then he made a comment thatsuggestedhe did not fully comprehend hat toincorporateasopposedto simplyadd)newmemberswhodiffered n race andgen-der from currentonesrequiredachange nhow the boardoperated.He toldme thatnewmembershadto be "peopleof colorwho could standuptous,"and he seemedunaware that this principlewould requirenew people-in this case, nearly allwomen of color-to accommodate o and fit in withexisting ways of doing thingsestablished argely by people who hadproceededthem.


12/16


Although this man saw the social relationsof dominance and subordinancebetween old andnewboardmembersandconsidered hemproblematic,he seemedto be unawareof the morecomplicated ntersectionsbetweenorganizationalon-gevityandrelationsof raceandgender.Hetoldme,"There's till somedeference ous,not as white[men],butaslong-termboardmembers."ncontrast,oneof the newwomen-of-color board members seemed to understand he deeper implicationswhen she told me,

Wetend orelyonthe mostexperiencedeopleon theboard, nd hosearemostlymen.... [Whatsee sthat] ven ormenofgoodwill, t'shard orelinquishrivilege.Wehave hesamemen eadinghediscussion. think twouldbeanactof goodwillforthem o bequiet or a whileand et others earn o lead.In anotherkind of race andgenderdynamic,womenof coloroccasionallytookon the responsibilityof mediatingwhen otherpeople were in conflict over someissue. This seemed to reflect both the somewhat tenuouspositionsof women ofcolor in the largersociety andin mixed-race,mixed-genderorganizationsand theskills andexperiencethey hadacquiredas a consequenceof being in these posi-tions.Inthefew situations was able to observe nwhich therewasconflict betweenmen of color andwhite women, it was my impression hat women of color often

foundthemselves"inthe middle."Onesuch occasion occurredat theannualmeet-ing about hefund'sconsensus mode of decisionmaking.Whenthe debatebecameespeciallyheatedbetweenwhite women andmen of color,twowomenof colordip-lomaticallyrestatedwhateach "side"hadsaidandreminded hemeachhowimpor-tant t was to resolvethisissue since ithadbecome divisive.Theydid notally them-selves with either side. Whitemen tended to stayout of the fray,often remainingsilent when this kind of conflict arose. While this silence by white men had theeffect of not addingto the polarizationalongrace andgender ines, it can also beseenas amarkof privilege hatwomen of color felttheycouldnotafford.Too muchwasat stakeforwomenof colorwhen their wo mainsourcesof allies,white womenand men of color,were in dispute.Theyfelt theyhadto intervene n some way.Indicativeof the location of women of color relativeto white women, onewoman of color told me abouta situation n whichshe had intervened o mediatebetween wowomen undingboardmembers-one ofcolor, heotherwhite-during aconflict.Shesaid,"Itried ogivethembotha sense of what he otherwassayingandfeeling, andI urgedthemboth to talkdirectlyto each other." cannot be certainaboutwhy womenof color sawit as importantor whitewomen andotherwomenof color to come to some agreementwhen in conflict. Here too their concernsseemedtoreflect boththeir enuouspositions n societyandin mixed-race,mixed-genderorganizations,as well as theirspecial skills andexperienceacquired rombeing in those positions.In the same way that womenof color may need men ofcoloras allies when issues threaten o dividealongracial ines, theyalso mayneedotherwomen-both white andof color-when issues threateno dividealong gen-der lines. While I observeda few white people-men and women-who acted


13/16


consistentlyas allies acrossracial ines,whatwas not evidentwasadependablealli-ance betweenwhite women and women of color.The relativeabsenceof across-race olidarityamongwomenmayhavereflectedthe secure position of white women relative to people of color in this particularorganization,asecurity hatmade white women see gendersolidarityas less neces-sary than in an organization n which they felt more threatened.This apparentabsence of a strong gender-basedalliance between white women andwomen ofcolor-an absenceinconsistentwith feministprinciples n anovertlypro-feministorganization-may have contributed o the need by women of color to maintaingood relationswitheveryonesincetheyneverknew whotheycouldcount on. Thisdynamic requiresfurtherresearchin othermixed-race,mixed-genderorganiza-tions, especially pro-feministones in which it seems unexpected.An additionalexplanationfor the mediatingbehaviorsby women of color istheirbelief thatmaintaininggood personaland social relations s essential onprin-ciple todoing good politicalwork(BookmanandMorgen1988;HillCollins 1990;Sacks 1988). Supporting his explanationwas the accountby the woman of colorwhodidthe behind-the-scenesmediationworkwhentwo otherwomen werein dis-pute;she said she "took t on myself to do something"becauseshe saw that"per-sonal dynamicsget in the way of thepoliticalwork."While severalwomen of coloratthePeople's CommunityFundtalkedwith meabouttheirmediationefforts,I neverheardmen orwhitewomenmention t. Theyseemed unawareof the work women of color were doing in this regard.To theextent thatthispatternpertains n this and otherorganizations,heircontributionsunrecognizedanddevalued.It is an apparentlyunintendedpatternof genderandracial subordination hat s repeatedly ormedandperpetuated.While these inter-ventions seemed tomeeffective inresolvingor at leastminimizing heconflictandwerethuspositivefor theorganization,he extraburden or thewomen of colorwhobecame involved in them constitutedanotherway this progressive organizationunintentionallyperpetuated patternof subordination.TheexamplesI havepresented how the extentto whichentrencheddailyface-to-face oppressivepatternsof genderand raceinteraction akeplaceeven in a pro-gressive pro-feministorganizationully committed o endingthem. The examplesshow as well the importantsimultaneouscompeting dynamic in which peopleacrossraceandgender ake tuponthemselvesto activelychallengethesepatterns.Theseseemingly contradictory ynamicssuggestthat o createandmaintain nter-nal solidarityacrossgenderand raceand to sustain some measureof pro-feministprogressivepractice,what srequireds ashared ommitment oongoingstruggle.

CONCLUSIONMy aim here hasbeen to call attention o theimportance f themyriad,complex,andsometimescompetingandcontradictorywaysthatanorganizationmaybe gen-dered and racializedand still lay claim to being feminist (or pro-feminist)and


14/16

640 GENDER& SOCIETY October1999

progressive.I have shown how genderedand racializedpatternsmayboth be verymuch in evidenceand,at the sametime,be regularlyandactively challenged.Myconclusion aboutthe importanceof these competingand contradictorypatternscontributes o explaininghow feministpracticeactuallyoccursin mixed-gender,mixed-raceorganizations Roth 1998, 143). Here, feminism exists as a politicalpracticeof ongoing struggle.Indeed,developingandtransmitting rganizationalforms that seek to operateaccording o progressiveand feministprinciples-evenmodifiedand unstableones-can be seen as itself a kind of activepoliticalprotest(Alter 1998, 265; YanceyMartin1990).Othershavedocumented,as I havehere,thechangein decision-makingstruc-tureof manyfeminist andprogressiveorganizationsounded n the 1970sandorigi-nallycommitted o a collectivist form andconsensualprocess(Bordt1997).Whatmy researchadds to the formulation s how people in the organization studiedmodified theirstructure or a varietyof reasons thatwere often race andgenderbased. While conflict did occur,people created some measure of organizationalsolidarityacrossgenderand race around heiragreementon themodifications,anagreement hatsometimesseemed unstableandtransitory.While some evidencesuggeststhat eministorganizations avebeen moresuccessfulthanothers n main-tainingdemocraticstructures Alter 1998, 262), manyprogressivesocial changeorganizations hatorganizedoriginallyaccording o strictfeministprincipleshavenot been as successful as the People's CommunityFundin makingthe transitionfrom a collective to a moreformalizedstructureSirianni1994).While women-white and of color-at the People'sCommunityFund did notfind it necessaryto createwomen-only spacesin theorganizationo advancetheirpositionin genderterms(Roth 1998), theydidfindit necessary o be alertto bothinstitutionalized ndinterpersonalnstancesof practicesandbehaviors hatthreat-ened to subordinatehemas women.Whilepeopleof color at thePeople'sCommu-nityFundneverwent so faras to createa formalpeople-of-colorcaucusto advancetheirposition in racialterms,they also found it necessaryto regularlyspeakoutagainstand actively oppose instancesthatthreatened o subordinate hem.Whatmayhavemade tpossibleforwomento continue o beactivelyengaged ncreatingorganizational olidarity n a cross-genderorganization,as well as for people ofcolor to be engagedin creatingorganizational olidarity n a cross-raceorganiza-tion,was thefact thatatthePeople'sCommunityFund,subordinated roupswerenotalone in challenging patternsof subordination.nstead,membersof dominantgroupsregularlyspokeout too, establishinga patternof raceandgenderallies.Importanto creatingsolidarityacross social barrierswas thesharedvalue con-textwithinwhich cross-racecross-gender truggles ookplace,a contextexplicitlystatedin the formalmission of the People's CommunityFund.This is similartoprocessesfoundin coalitionsacrosssocial barriershataresometimescreatedandsustained f certain"factors hatpromoteunity"arepresent, ncludingsharedval-ues and nterests Poster1995,672). PeopleatthePeople'sCommunityFundhadapolitical vision of the kind of society they wantedto live in andhelp create.Thisvision helpedto sustainthemwhen conflicts aroseandmadeit possible to move


15/16


pasttheconflictof themomentto renewedcommitmentandprogress oward heirvision.Acker(1995, 141)has asked f it is possibleto createfeministorganizingacrossthe intersectionsof gender,race,ethnicity,andclass. I concludethat t ispossibletocreate thiskind of solidarity,butmostprobably n the form of continuedstrugglesover establishedpatternsof subordination nd activeongoingefforts to repeatedlyresist and challenge them. Looking closely at a mixed-gender,mixed-race,pro-feminist organization,as I have here, shows that organizational ransformationtowarda feministandprogressivevision is aprocess,a goal to be reached or,withits courseperhapsbestdescribedas anongoingandunstableproject Sirianni1994,573).

REFERENCESAcker,Joan. 1995.Feministgoals andorganizingprocesses.InFeministorganizations:Harvestof thenewwomen'smovement, ditedby M.M. Ferreeand P.Y.Martin.Philadelphia,PA:TempleUniver-sity Press.Alter,Catherine.1998.Bureaucracy nddemocracynorganizations:Revisiting eministorganizations.In Private action and thepublic good, editedby WalterW. Powell and ElisabethS. Clemens.New

Haven,CT: YaleUniversityPress.Anderson,CynthiaD. 1996.Understandingheinequalityproblematic: romscholarlyrhetoric otheo-reticalreconstruction.Gender &Society 10:729-46.Arnold,Gretchen.1995. Dilemmasof feministcoalitions:Collective dentityandstrategic ffectivenessin the batteredwomen's movement.In Feministorganizations:Harvestof thenew women's move-ment,editedby M. M. Ferree andP.Y.Martin.Philadelphia,PA:TempleUniversityPress.Barnett,BerniceMcNair. 1995. Black women's collectivist movementorganizations:Theirstrugglesduring he "doldrums."nFeministorganizations:Harvestof the new women'smovement, ditedbyM. M. Ferreeand P.Y.Martin.Philadelphia,PA:Temple UniversityPress.Blum,Linda. 1991.Betweenfeminism nd labor: Thepolitics of thecomparableworthmovement.Ber-keley: Universityof CaliforniaPress.Bobo, K.A., J.Kendall,andS. Max. 1991.Organizingfor ocial change.Washington,DC:Seven LocksPress.Bookman,Ann,and SandraMorgen.1988. Women nd thepolitics of empowerment.Philadelphia,PA:TempleUniversityPress.Bordt,Rebecca.1997. Thestructureofwomen'snonprofit rganizations. ndianapolis: ndianaUniver-sity Press.Buechler, S. M. 1993. Beyond resource mobilization:Emergingtrendsin social movementtheory.Sociological Quarterly34:217-35.Cockbur, Cynthia.1991.In theway of women:Men'sresistanceto sex equality n organizations.Ith-aca, NY:ILR Press.Collins, PatriciaHill. 1990. Blackfeminist thought:Knowledge,consciousness, and the politics of

empowerment.New York:Routledge KeganPaul.Daniels,A. K. 1985.Good times andgood works:Theplaceof sociability n thework of womenvolun-teers. Social Problems 32:363-74.Delgado,G. 1986.Organizing hemovement:TherootsandgrowthofACORN.Philadelphia,PA:Tem-ple UniversityPress.Ferguson,K. E. 1984. The eminist case against bureaucracy.Philadelphia,PA:TempleUniversityPress.


16/16


Freeman,J. 1975. Thepolitics of women'sliberation.New York:Longman.Gelb,J. 1995. Feministorganization uccess andthepoliticsof engagement. nFeministorganizations:Harvestof thenewwomen'smovement, ditedby M. M. Ferreeand P. Y Martin.Philadelphia,PA:TempleUniversityPress.Giddens,A. 1987. Social theoryand modernsociety.Stanford,CA: StanfordUniversityPress.Glaser,B., and A. Strauss. 1967. Thediscoveryof grounded heory.Chicago:Aldine.Hochschild,A. H. 1983. Themanagedheart:Commercializationf humaneeling. Berkeley:Univer-sity of CaliforniaPress.Hunter,A., and S. Staggenborg.1986. Communitiesdo act: Neighborhoodcharacteristics, esourcemobilization,and political actionby local communityorganizations.Social Science Journal 23:169-80.Iannelo,K. P. 1992. Decisions withouthierarchy:Feminist nterventions n organizationtheoryand

practice. New York:Routledge KeganPaul.Jenkins,J. C. 1987.Nonprofit rganizationsndpolicy advocacy. nThenonprofitector,editedbyW.W.Powell. New Haven,CT: YaleUniversityPress.Kantor,RosabethMoss. 1977. Men and womenof thecorporation.New York:Basic Books.Katzenstein,MaryFainsod. 1995. Discursivepolitics andfeminist activismin the Catholicchurch.InFeministorganizations:Theharvestof the newwomen'smovement, ditedbyM.M.Ferreeand P.Y.Martin.Philadelphia,PA:TempleUniversityPress.Mansbridge, . 1994.Feminismandformsof freedom.In Criticalstudiesin organizationand bureauc-racy,2d ed., editedby F.FischerandC. Sirianni.Philadelphia,PA:TempleUniversityPress.Martin,PatriciaYancey.1990. Rethinking eministorganizations.Gender&Society4:182-206.McCarthy,J., and M. N. Zald. 1977. Resource mobilizationand social movements:A partial heory.AmericanJournalof Sociology 82:1212-41.Morgen,Sandra.1995."Itwas the best of times,it wastheworstof times":Emotionaldiscourse n thework cultures of feministhealth clinics. In Feministorganizations:Harvestof the new women'smovement,editedby M. M. FerreeandP. Y. Martin.Philadelphia,PA:TempleUniversityPress.Ostrander, usanA. 1984. Women f theupperclass. Philadelphia,PA:TempleUniversityPress.. 1995. Money or change:Social movementphilanthropy t HaymarketPeople's Fund.Phila-delphia,PA:TempleUniversityPress.Poster,WinifredR. 1995. The Challengesandpromisesof class and racialdiversity n the women'smovement:A studyof two women'sorganizations.Gender&Society9:659-79.Roth,Benita. 1998.Feministboundariesn the feminist-friendly rganization:The women'scaucus ofACTUP/LA. Gender& Society 12:129-45.

Rothschild-Whitt, . 1979.The collectivistorganization:An alternative orational-bureaucraticodels.AmericanSociological Review44:509-27.Sacks,Karen.1988.Caringbythehour:Women,work,andorganizingat the DukeMedical Center.Chi-cago: Universityof ChicagoPress.Sirianni,C. 1994. Learningpluralism:Democracyand diversityin feminism. In Critical studies inorganizationandbureaucracy, ded.,editedbyF.FischerandC. Sirianni.Philadelphia,PA:TempleUniversityPress.Tom,Allison. 1995.Childrenof ourculture?Class,power,and earning n a feminist bank.InFeministorganizations:Harvestof the new women'smovement, ditedby M. M. Ferree and P.Y. Martin.Philadelphia,PA:TempleUniversityPress.

SusanA. Ostrander s a professorof sociology at TuftsUniversity.Her publications includeWomenof theUpperClassandMoneyforChange:SocialMovementPhilanthropy tHaymar-ketPeople'sFund;her articles have ocused on social changephilanthropy,tudyingelites,andnonprofitorganizationsand the state.Her newprojectis aboutwomen'sorganizing, unding,and thestate.

fem mixed genderorgs

Documents