From: anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson)
Subject: Re: Goals, Strategies, Tactics
Organization: Madison Academic Computing Center, UW-Madison
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 93 06:42:30 GMT


In article <TIM.93Jan23072350@ear-ache.mit.edu>
tim@ear-ache.mit.edu (Tim Wilson) writes:

>In article <1993Jan21.131625.7630@macc.wisc.edu>
>anderson@macc.wisc.edu (Jess Anderson) writes: 

>Granted, the more limited one's goals, the less time one
>spends discussing what they ought to be.

Up to some point, I suppose that's quite what one would
expect.  I don't need to talk about it much to get you and me
to cross the street if you're already predisposed to do so.

At the other extreme, when people are not so disposed (you
give good reasons below) or when people are unsure what they
want and when the situation is perforce quite complicated,
the discussion can drag out for an unacceptably long time,
with a resulting paralysis caused by indecision.

>Both the diversity of our community and the closet work
>against our formulating a set of ideals that are easy to
>fight for.  Just look at the flak over certain clauses in
>the MOW platform.  Or how we deal with closeted individuals.
>Or the discussion of Stonewall.  And, at this point, we have
>a number of organizations advocating aspects of our
>situation, each with differing goals, strategies, and
>tactics.

If this discussion is going to lead eventually to something
other than just more discussion, I think we actually have to
start talking about each of those topics in some detail in
this group.

For example, what about how we deal with closeted people?
What can we do to bridge our diversities without suppressing
them?  How can we use Stonewall and other historical
precedents constructively not only for the struggle in North
America, but worldwide?  How can we inculcate in each of our
separate institutions an awareness of and a responsiveness
to wider issues that touch upon the institution's more
limited goals?

>By knowing what they want and having some idea about how to
>get it, both nationally and locally, our opponents
>successfully engage us at the tactical, short-term, local
>level: Oregon, Colorado, Ohio.

My guess is their tactic is primarily to exhaust us and our
resources, which they know to be slender.  And some of that
slenderness of resources is structural; we are at best not
more than 10%, and in terms of being active, more like
1%-3%.  They, by contrast, are a vast force.

I guess what that boils down to is that in a society in
which inequality is structural -- and this may also be part
of the reason it's that way -- such a small minority can too
easily be ignored by the vast majority.

>Prior to the presidential election, much of our success was
>also local: various cities and states.  But while our
>successes were principally due to local efforts, their
>actions are part of a larger structure involving
>"charitable" foundations, networks of "fundamentalist"
>churches, and "conservative" politics.

I think we must organize at comparable levels, a task which
is made more difficult, for example considering churches,
by not having parallel structures in place.  We will have
to create things where earlier there was nothing.  By
contrast, the fascists can muster huge resources by
comandeering existing, in-place institutions, like churches
and school boards.

>As long as we continue to disagree about our objectives and
>how to know when we've achieved them, we'll continue to
>operate tactically, not strategically.

All too true.

>Our goals oughta be simple: Gay Rights = Civil Rights =
>Equal Rights.  Now, how do we get there?  And how will we
>know when we've arrived?

The how, it seems to me, must involve the difficult task of
building coalitions.  The when, or at least measures of
progress, will need to be a matter of defining goals
explicit enough to be able to tick them off as
accomplishments when the time comes.

Though it all seems inordinately complicated, there is at
least one saving grace.  Doing more than we are doing is
perhaps not so very difficult.  Since so much needs to be
done, just about anybody, setting of in just about any
direction, is more likely to achieve a positive result than
a negative one.  This is more likely when initiatives are
globally defined but locally implemented.

-- 
[Jess Anderson <> Madison Academic Computing Center <> University of Wisconsin]
[Internet: anderson@macc.wisc.edu <-best, UUCP:{}!uwvax!macc.wisc.edu!anderson]
[Room 3130 <> 1210 West Dayton Street / Madison WI 53706 <> Phone 608/262-5888]
[---------> Discrimination, Bigotry, and Hate are not Family Values <---------]
Newsgroups: soc.motss