Search

Efforts to respond to oppression are often framed as strategies of 'resistance' or 'liberation.' This paper uses critical discourse analysis (CDA) to examine the assumptions implicit in these strategies and shows that they derive from a realism of 'normative adversarialism,' where confrontation is seen as a natural and inevitable approach for achieving social change. The paper then asks what an alternative conceptual lens might yield, where social transformation is reimagined as evolutionary, developmental and integrative. It concludes that, through such a lens, responding to oppression can be recast as an effort of 'constructive resilience.' Coined in relation to the systematic persecution of Iran's largest religious minority—the Bahá'í faith—this term describes a strategy of transcending years of state-sponsored discrimination through activities such as literacy and empowerment initiatives for children and youth in socio-economically marginalized neighborhoods, as well as through a home-based university initiative. Consequently, this paper introduces a shift from confrontation to cohesion as the main driver for social change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gandhi and Ambedkar offer a fascinating picture of community organizers fighting against caste oppression and caste discrimination. Both were committed to transforming the social, economic, political, and cultural conditions of 'Dalits'†. They claimed that only through social action could societal transformation take place. As a result, they placed a strong emphasis on mobilizing the public against untouchability. They envisioned the removal of untouchability through popular struggles and popular participation. Not only did Gandhi and Ambedkar undertake popular campaigns, but they also saw them as necessary and beneficial. This paper explores the implications of integrating the constructs of the Gandhian and Ambedkarian models to tackle the problem of untouchability. It re-reads the Constitution of the Anti-Untouchability League (AUL) which was prepared by Gandhi himself in January 1935 in conjunction with a comprehensive letter penned by Ambedkar in November 1932, containing a plan of action for the AUL to carry out for the uplift of 'Dalits', to shed light on the lessons that are still important for the modern-day community organizers in India. The paper argues that synergizing Gandhi's and Ambedkar's emancipatory discourses can enrich the present-day activism for social action combatting untouchability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food sovereignty movement is a global alliance of peasants aiming to create democratic, sustainable, and decentralized food systems. The radical strategy of the movement, aimed at promoting a global peasant identity and collective action for food systems' transformation, is a community development endeavour that encompasses processes of social learning, community building, and community organizing. The food sovereignty movement provides relevant insights about the ethical challenges involved in building and mobilizing transnational solidarity. This paper explores the global food sovereignty movement of La Vía Campesina and two cases of local, farmer-led movements in India, namely Navdanya and The Deccan Development Society, through a constructivist qualitative case study methodological design. The paper analyses the ethical challenges experienced and explores the roles and responsibilities that community development workers play in facilitating transformative social change in the food systems. This paper demonstrates that the main challenge of building solidarity involves reconciling multiple visions and practice frameworks, through the respect of diversity and democratic choice. Finally, the paper highlights ethical considerations (such as overcoming binary logics), the crafting of community-led discourses, and pedagogical practices (such as Wisdom Dialogues), as key elements to guide community development workers to aid the facilitation of processes for identity building, conscientization, and collective action. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Collective impact is increasingly being adopted as a systems-based approach for addressing complex social problems. Yet one of the critical components, shared measurement, remains challenging to implement (Hanleybrown, Kania and Kramer, 2012). Based around a common set of metrics, shared measurement is foundational to offering multi-organizational initiatives ongoing feedback that can allow them to share the lessons learned, make adjustments, and document the outcomes of their joint efforts. This paper examines the lessons practitioners have learned as they applied shared measurement strategies across diverse initiatives. We scrutinized food systems initiatives, in particular, hypothesizing that the complex, adaptive nature of food systems makes it more challenging to apply a commonly agreed upon set of measures in comparison to other sectors. Through seventeen semi-structured interviews, we found that interviewees shared similar perceptions about the multiple benefits of shared measurement whether they worked in food systems or other fields. Based on the major challenges they encountered, three primary lessons emerged about what it takes to establish a successful shared measurement system: trust across collaborating organizations, a streamlined process, and sufficient funding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]