"KEEPING THEIR FAITHS"

"THAT'S THE SPIRIT" 

"A RALLY FOR JUSTICE"

"REAFFIRMING OUR BONDS" 

"LABOR, RELIGIOUS GROUPS UNITE FOR SOCIAL GOOD" 

These are headlines that represent what many social movement groups are trying to achieve - a coalition that unites for the social good and rallies for justice. The Greater Boston Interfaith Organization held their founding convention on November 22, 1998 and managed not only to successfully obtain media coverage, but also to obtain their framing of the event in the majority of the print media. The purpose of this paper is to offer a preliminary exploration of how the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization (GBIO) has utilized media and framing strategies to mobilize a new coalition in the Boston metropolitan area.

In 1996, the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization was founded by a coalition of ten Boston area denominations. The people who initiated the founding of GBIO were Lew Finfer of the Organizing and Leadership Training Center, Rev. John Heinemeier of Roxbury Resurrection Lutheran and a local foundation. All three organizations were promoting community based organizing efforts on their own and wanted to participate in a larger effort. Rev. Heinemeier had been one of the key organizers of a strong effort in the South Bronx in New York City affiliated with the Industrial Areas Foundation and proposed implementing the same tactics in Boston. The Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) model has been successful at building community wide coalitions across the country in the South Bronx, Texas, Baltimore, San Antonio, Los Angeles and more recently, Chicago. Thus, the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) was hired to help build a broad based coalition in the Greater Boston Area. The stated goal of the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization (GBIO) is "to coalesce, train and organize the faith communities of Greater Boston across all religious, racial, ethnic, class and neighborhood lines for the public good" (Boston Globe, 22 March 1998).

Why did the GBIO seek out the Industrial Areas Foundation? The GBIO sought them out because of their long history in community organizing and successful track record for their specific model of community organizing. In 1987, the Industrial Areas Foundation launched a community wide organizing effort in the South Bronx in New York City. The South Bronx Churches (SBC) have since grown into a powerful coalition of forty-five dues paying churches that can mobilize residents to demand better resources and support for their New York City neighborhood. In the years since, the IAF has built strong organizations in many cities as noted above.

The IAF organizing model focuses on training leaders who will build their own power base. It was developed by Saul Alinsky and Ed Chambers and has been practiced and honed over the past fifty years.¹ According to Mike Gecan, an IAF lead organizer, "The heart of our organizing is the finding of talented potential leaders, the inviting of those leaders into training and relationship, and the enabling of people to decide whether they want to develop, and where, and when, and how fast" (Rooney 1995, 76). The IAF model² was summarized by Robert Fisher into five succinct elements (Rooney 1995, 76):

1. The professional organizer is the catalyst for social change.

2. The task is to build a democratic community-based organiza tion.

3. The goal is to win power.

4. Use any tactics necessary.

5. A people's organization must be pragmatic and non-ideological.

This model is built upon the rational actor theory and pulls together many threads of social movement theory. Like the rational actor theory of individual economic behavior, the IAF model assumes that people will choose the rational choice when given the option, and that the most rational choice is whatever is in the perceived best interests of that actor. "Alinsky emphasized that since people act from self-interest rather than altruism, it is self-interest rather that exalted ideals that should motivate a people's organization" (Rooney 1995, 76).

The second underpinning of the IAF model is the drive to develop organizational power. The model is designed to obtain power in order to participate in the American democratic political/electoral system. Like the pluralist interpretation of social movement theory, it is based on the electoral and political lobbying process and is not seeking to change the basic structure of the American society. The IAF model is most in agreement with resource mobilization theory. The IAF community organizations act as "challengers, lacking routine access to the polity" who "are able to gain collective control over the resources of a constituency and to use them in some form of rebellious collective action" (Gamson and Schmeidler 1984, 568). Also in agreement with resource mobilization theory, the IAF model depends heavily on outside resources and "professional organizers" to build community wide organizations. As stated by McCarthy and Zald, "Social movements may or may not be based upon the grievances of the presumed beneficiaries. Conscience constituents, individual and organizational, may provide major sources of support. And in some cases supporters may have no commitment to the values that underlie specific movements" (1977, 1216). In the case of IAF, this use of outside resources includes training participants to utilize IAF thinking, tactics and structures. Ecklein and Lauffer identified the IAF mobilizing effort as being a four step process (Rooney 1995, 89):

1. There needs to be a nucleus of support and the availability of financial resources from outside the disadvantaged community in order to initiate an organizing process. (emphasis added)

2. Alinsky (read Chambers) set certain tests as conditions for coming, and, in responding to these conditions, the local leadership began the process of organization before Alinsky committed himself to enter the situation.

3. Alinsky helped the local leadership meet his set of conditions. 

(emphasis added)

4. As soon as Alinsky committed himself to organizing, the development of a militant and disciplined core of people became the overriding objective. Issues and programs were converted into tactics to achieve that objective.

The Greater Boston Interfaith Organization had hired the IAF to help implement this model of community organizing in the Boston metropolitan area. GBIO and IAF have created a strong partnership in the Boston area built on previously existing faith-based coalitions. A "faith-based" coalition is one than is built through churches and religious organizations.

In November, prior to the founding event discussed in the media, the GBIO had a multitude of tasks in order to continue to strengthen and build the organization both internally and externally. On an internal basis, the GBIO had two main goals. First, the organization was still in the process of recruiting members to build its own power base and still faced mobilization challenges to achieve that goal. Second, within the organization the fragile new relationships that had begun to sprout across race and class lines needed to be nurtured and given room to grow. On an external level, the GBIO was seeking to establish itself as a "mighty political, economic and social force" within the city of Boston (Boston Globe, 23 November 1998). The media strategy GBIO utilized to achieve the above goals successfully bridged the internal and external goals and has to date effectively strengthened the organization.³

"Media must be intended as a dialogue with specific audiences, a dialogue with content: it is not an end in itself. Media as an end in itself is a diversion; we lose if we focus on momentary fame rather than on strengthening our movement" (Ryan 1991, 29). The GBIO has consistently followed the Industrial Areas Foundation's (IAF) strategy of carefully selecting the points at which media coverage would be most useful to strengthen the movement and build a dialogue with potential members and targets of change. The GBIO clearly understood news routines, how to develop a media friendly event that also achieved their internal goals, and how to present the collective versus one media star.

IAF organizations seek out media at certain stages in the development of each organization through a series of carefully staged events such as a first public meeting followed by a founding convention. After approximately two years of quietly building relationships across the Greater Boston Area in order to create the internal strength necessary to sustain the organization, the GBIO held an event that was identified as "the first public meeting" in the press and introduced itself to the external Boston community. The event was covered by the Boston Globe in both the Metro News Section and the editorial section. This coverage achieved two objectives: internally, the mostly positive press coverage provided validation and encouragement to current and potential participants and, externally, the coverage strengthened a relationship with the Boston Globe editors and reporters and announced the arrival of a new organization in the Boston area.

The next media event occurred Sunday, November 22, 1998. This event was intended to announce the "birth" of the new organization - the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization. The GBIO was no longer quietly building, the volume had risen to a raucous roar as demonstrated by the voices of more than 4,000 attendees at the Founding Convention. The print media coverage and the frames presented within that coverage were overwhelmingly positive. The extent of the coverage reflected the relationship that had already been established with the Boston Globe. The Globe included articles on Friday and Sunday before the event and on Monday as a summary of the event. Additional positive coverage was in The Patriot Ledger. The television coverage was less prominent and did not fully reflect the preferred framing of the organization. The frame created by the GBIO built upon cultural themes that have become part of society's folklore about collective action in the United States and have a great deal of resonance within the faith based communities to whom GBIO is speaking - faith in the strength in numbers for the average citizen, equal opportunities for all, and the belief that "people of different beliefs can share with each other an overarching faith in humankind and its ability to more forward when people join together" (Patriot Ledger [Boston], 25 November 1998).

The only exception to the positive coverage was a rather incomplete and confusing article in the Boston Herald. Despite a positive headline, the article resounded with a skeptical voice that was pessimistic about an organization that could build across race and ethnicity lines in Boston. The article focused on what would "drive wedges" into the organization contrasted with quotes from participants voicing a commitment to unity and non-partisan politics. The article did not provide any background on prior efforts, nor did it present an effective collective action frame. Again, however, this article stood out as an exception from the rest of the GBIO media coverage.

The timing of the events and the extent of the coverage reflected GBIO's on-going relationship and understanding of news media routines. The Boston Globe and Patriot Ledger articles occurred on Friday and Sunday before the event, thus inviting participation and hyping the event itself. And, both papers and television coverage occurred immediately following the event. In my opinion, the television coverage was probably enhanced due to the extensive article in Sunday's Boston Globe Focus section which provided significant background information and firmly established the newsworthiness of the event. Ryan outlines the following criteria for newsworthiness:

Publicness: Organizers build public recognition by mobilizing those populations that have an interest in the problem and by creating events that force mainstream media attention.

Importance: An event's newsworthiness depends on the importance of the institutions or the people involved. The media will focus on the institution's most visible leaders.

Interest: Mainstream media seek decisive actions of defined opponents whose confrontations present clear options in a fast-paced drama (Ryan 1991, 35-36).

The GBIO staged two sequential public events, the first public meeting followed by the Founding Convention, that created an increasing feeling of drama by ratcheting up the number of institutions and people involved. The institutions and the number of people involved also generated a sufficient level of importance, and the media coverage helped highlight the opponents: 

And while the group pledges to avoid partisan politics, the numbers involved - about 70 area churches, synagogues and mosques, as well as community development groups, homeless shelters, and union locals - is enough to make any politician salivate (or tremble with fear) come election time (Boston Globe, 22 November 1998).

The content of the majority of coverage reflected carefully crafted messages that built on pre-existing cultural themes and that set a foundation for a strong collective action frame. Gamson defines the three components of a collective action frame as injustice, agency and identity. Through rousing speeches, the actual people chosen to represent the organization and symbolic songs, as well as the sheer numbers who participated at the November 22 event, GBIO instilled all three of these components into their message. Gamson defines each of the three components as follows:  The injustice component refers to the moral indignation expressed....the agency component refers to the consciousness that it is possible to alter conditions or policies through collective action...the identity component refers to the process of defining this "we" in opposition to some "they" who have different interests or values (Gamson 1992, 7).

Throughout the rhetoric both at the event itself and reflected in the media coverage, all three of these components were apparent in the language used. Quotes from a variety of leaders in the GBIO clearly communicated the moral indignation, the possibility of change through collective action and identified the "we":

"I've worked in urban churches all my life as a pastor, and one of the things I've seen that they all have in common is the urban loneliness," says Rev. Patricia Daley of Hyde Park Presbyterian Church. "There are so many issues, so many struggles, and one small church trying to do something creates a sense of powerlessness. Churches working together can look at some of these problems that seem overwhelming" (Boston Globe, 22 November 1998).

"We are standing here to have a say in what happens in Boston!"

(Speech of Boston Youth Group Leader 1998).

"We will work together to build trust and mutual respect, to empower ourselves, to stand together for equal justice...to stand together for the whole...for the all of the citizens of Boston!" (Speech of Pastor Frank Kelley 1998).

"We need to be proud of who we are...to make our values come to life...to provide our children with equal opportunities...to have hope and a vision for our future!"

(Speech of Jameela Philip 1998).

The media coverage helped to illuminate and define the "they" as opposed to the "we" of GBIO - the privileged and powerful of Boston: 

"Our constitution says our government if about the pursuit of happiness - not happiness," says Jim Drake, GBIO/IAF lead organizer. "We are trying to interest the thousands and thousands of people who have dropped out and are no longer engaged in that quadrennial event that is not even politics any longer, but where the person with the most money wins. We are trying to get back to a more human element of politics" (Boston Globe, 22 November 1998).

"It is one of the unfortunate parts of Boston's historical tradition, and in a way, it starts with the Puritans when they arrived and set up the Congregational church and they didn't want any other religions," says Thomas H. O'Connor, professor emeritus of history at Boston College. "The tendency to preserve privilege only for those in power had a very early beginning" (Boston Globe, 22 November 1998).

As stated earlier, the frame created by the GBIO built upon cultural themes that have become part of society's folklore about collective action in the United States and have a great deal of resonance within the faith based communities to whom GBIO is speaking - faith in the strength in numbers for the average citizen, equal opportunities for all, and the belief that "people of different beliefs can share with each other an overarching faith in humankind and its ability to more forward when people join together" (Patriot Ledger [Boston], 25 November 1998).

I applied Gamson's collective action frame components to the GBIO components: 

Gamson's Collective GBIO Frame Components

Action Frame

Injustice Component Only the privileged and the powerful have a voice in what happens in Boston

Agency Component By unifying and working together, the average citizen can have a voice in what happens in Boston

Identity Component "We" are people of faith who believe that together we can change the balance of power in Boston; "They" are the business leaders and politicians who are currently not being held accountable for their actions 

GBIO's carefully constructed message successfully bridged both the internal and external objectives. The often inspiring and definitely rousing rhetoric of the GBIO leaders at the Founding Convention and the symbolism and imagery of the newspaper quotations worked together to spin a potentially powerful collective action frame. GBIO's on-going relationship and understanding of the routines of the news media enabled the organization to achieve what few challengers are able to do in the majority of the media - the accurate and effective communication of the frame as the challenger defines it. The Patriot Ledger ended its editorial with a quotation that evokes all the positive symbolism and emotion of being part of a social movement organization in the United States and inspires the hope of what might be possible:

"Some will scoff at this ambitious plan. Let them. Our society began with people who believed anything was possible, and it is held together by those who continue to share that ideal and work to make it a reality" (Patriot Ledger [Boston], 25 November 1998).

Brelis, Matthew. (22 November 1998). Keeping Their Faiths. Boston Globe, focus sec., 

Brienes, Wini. (1982). Community and Organization in the New Left,1962-1968. New York, NY: Praeger Publisher.

Speech of Boston Youth Group Leader. (22 November 1998). Given at the first public GBIO meeting followed by the Founding Convention.

Speech of Pastor Frank Kelley. (22 November 1998). Given at the first public GBIO meeting followed by the Founding Convention.

Speech of Jameela Philip. (22 November 1998). Given at the first public GBIO meeting followed by the Founding Convention.

The Patriot Ledger (Boston). (25 November 1998). Reaffirming Our Common Bonds. 

Gamson, William. (1992). Talking Politics. New York City: Cambridge University Press.

Gamson, William A. and Schmeidler, Emilie. (1984). Organizing the Poor. Theory and Society, 13:567-85.

McCarthy, John D. and Zald, Mayer N. (1977). Resource Mobilization in Social Movements: A Partial Theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82:1212-41.

Perry, Cynthia (Ed.). (1990). Organizing for Change: 50 Years of IAF. New York: Industrial Areas Foundation.

Rooney, Jim. (1995). Organizing the South Bronx. Albany, NY: State University New York Press. 

Ryan, Charlotte. (1991). Prime Time Activism. Boston: South End Press. 

Warren, Mark Russell. (1995). Social Capital and Community Empowerment: Religion and Political Organization in the Texas Industrial Areas Foundation. Ph.D. diss., Harvard.

Other Sources: GBIO Founding Convention, interviews with Boston residents

1 IAF was founded in Chicago in 1940 by Saul Alinsky as a social-action agency that contracts to help build community organizations.

2 I must caution that IAF does not enter into "theoretical discussions" and would not have identified themselves as having a "model" per se.

3 Of course, the internal and external goals are not mutually exclusive. But, the media and framing strategies have succeeded in bridging these goals to a remarkable extent.