Rethinking Bridging: Risk and Trust in Multiracial Community Organizing

Abstract

Existing research on social capital advocates for an increase in bridging as an antidote to the “dark side” of bonding. But theory also suggests that the development of new social capital is unlikely in contexts of generalized distrust. This article addresses that quandary through the study of a congregation-based community organizing project in Detroit. Narratives drawn from interviews suggest that bridging also has downsides; potential risks from bridging are a concern for participants in multiracial organizing. I argue that the creation of bridging social capital is possible in part because organizers, clergy, and lay leaders act as conduits, intentionally building interpersonal trust among unlikely participants.

Strength in Diversity? Group Heterogeneity in the Mobilization of Grassroots Organizations

“…Multiracial organizations cultivate solidarity along explicitly racial and ethnic lines, and this has been seen in cases ranging from the New Left's multiracial community organizing in the 1960s (Frost, ) to the multiracial Hapa movement of more recent years (Bernstein & De La Cruz, ). Still, multiracial grassroots organizations benefit from intra‐racial and intra‐ethnic social capital, but may lack bridging social capital (Wood, ; but see Rusch, ). To overcome racial and ethnic divides, multiracial groups devote time and energy to building organizational cultures that are attentive to group differences; Wood (: 135–6) argues that multiracial groups tend to focus on the local level at the cost of affecting broader social inequities.…”

Going Regional: The Evolution of an Organizing Strategy in Detroit

“…Existing research outlines the benefits of scaling up, both for the strength of organizations and for policy impact. At the regional level, scaling up is a political strategy for achieving policy coordination as a solution to urban crises, to overcome the isolation of the urban poor and protect inner suburbs from disinvestment and decline (Dreier et al 2004; Orfield 1997, p. 50; Rusk 1993, 1999). It expands the scope of conflict to win the weak new allies and put their issues on local and state policy agendas (Schattschneider 1975).…”

Diverse social movement coalitions: Prospects and challenges

“…Thus, such coalitions may face a wide range of challenges including cultural and political differences (Lichterman, ; Smith & Bandy, ), divergent identity‐based motivations for taking action (Staggenborg, , ), different grievances and/or framings of the problem (Beamish & Luebbers, ), diverging tactical preferences (Rusch, ), resource inequalities and power asymmetries (Einwohner et al, ; Levi & Murphy, ), lack of overlap in membership (Staggenborg, , ), geographic distance (Smith & Bandy, ; Okamato, ), informal boundary policing (Maney, ), and particularly for transnational coalitions, limited opportunities to interact (Maney, ), and language differentials (Bandy & Smith, ). Consequently, trust is often an issue (Wood, ), to the degree that, in the words of Bystydzienski and Schacht (, p. 5), “even seemingly progressive individuals … [would] still typically view those individuals having the ‘other' identity with trepidation.”…”