Processes in the Formation and Functioning of Organizations

Two major types of processes seem to operate in the formation and functioning of ethnic organizations: those of social demand or the satisfaction of need, on the one hand, and the entrepreneurial or “supply” processes, on the other. In the first type, organizations are established in an ethnic collectivity in order to cope with problems encountered by its members or to meet their expressed needs. As already suggested, organization may come about in order to address concerns such as housing, jobs, and language training, for cultural expression and the transmission of values and ways of life to the next generation, for social solidarity and emotional support, or for protection against possible discrimination and hostility.

The nature of community organization that emerges in such cases is a function of the characteristics of the members and the social environment in which the collectivity finds itself. The community may change over the years in terms of its socio-economic composition, the relative size of its constituent generations, its age structure, and its size. Environmental circumstances may also vary. Accordingly, the demand for services will change, a phenomenon that tends to be reflected in community organization. The second generation, for instance, does not have the same needs and problems as new or relatively recent immigrants.

Problems and needs can also be externally induced. As we have seen, prejudice and discrimination can lead to the formation of social networks and organizations on an ethnic basis. Indeed, the need to combat hostility and resist oppression and discrimination is among the most important reasons for ethnic organization. Government policies and programs, as well as significant events on the international scene, can also have an important impact on the demand for community organization among members of an ethnic minority.

Features of the contemporary bureaucratic and technological society have also been hypothesized as an impetus for the formation and maintenance of ethnic organizations. For example, because of the isolation, anomie, and meaninglessness that many individuals experience in such environments, they feel the need to rediscover their sociocultural roots, to establish or consolidate a basis of social integration, and in the process, to anchor their own identity in a community that has meaning for their personal history. Thus they constitute a potential clientele for various kinds of ethnic organizations, particularly those with a significant cultural or symbolic component.

In this “social demand” approach, the individuals who become leaders in the community are those who have the ability and resources to deal with the problems experienced by its members. When the need is that of new immigrants in their relations with mainstream agencies, those who have the necessary linguistic skills, legal knowledge, or bureaucratic competence are the ones likely to be recognized as leaders. Accordingly, they are those people who are perceived as capable of making a contribution to the solution of group problems. Moreover, the hierarchy of leadership in the community is a function of the relative importance of the various individuals. It changes when new problems or needs surface or when more able individuals appear on the scene. Leaders are the trustees of the community, who have incorporated in their own attitudes and aspirations those of the collectivity with whom they identify. They have internalized the collective interests and see it as their duty to use their abilities and resources to satisfy these concerns.

In the second kind of process, the ethnic collectivity is conceived as an arena of entrepreneurial activity. This interpretation can be called the “supply” approach to ethnic community organization. The basic concept behind this view is that ethnic collectivities become organized to the extent that they provide possibilities of action and gain for potential entrepreneurs. The opportunities for action can be in economic, political, or cultural fields or any combination of these. Community organization does not depend on the expressed needs of members of the collectivity, but rather on the range of opportunities for organizational activity, whether or not these are related to problems or needs felt by the members.

Thus it is the aspirations of actual or potential leaders that constitute the driving force behind organizational activity in the community. These ambitions, in turn, are a function of the resources at the individuals’ disposal and any related interests, which can be economic or material, including real estate, money, or land; human, such as particular talents, experience, technical skills, access to information, and connections with important mainstream individuals; or organizational, a type of resource that can be particularly important in mobilizing participation on the part of the community.

In the entrepreneurial perspective, community formation and functioning are viewed from the point of view of persons who see opportunities for their own gain in terms of power, prestige, or income. Community leadership is constituted of self-interested individuals, rather than primarily as a response to needs expressed by members. It is a matter of controlling the means of material, symbolic, and socio-emotional production and the opportunities to put them to profitable use.

What is perceived as an opportunity depends on the particular assets that entrepreneurs control. For instance, individuals in religious roles command symbolic and socio-emotional resources; they will accordingly attempt to build organizations and pursue activities that involve that type of resource. Persons with legal skills will focus on concerns that can be handled through litigation or legislative changes, while those with political ability will address matters that can be dealt with in the public arena. Entrepreneurs with media expertise will pay attention to the informational and symbolic potential of circumstances and events.

The idea that the needs and problems which become part of the public agenda are those selected and articulated by leaders or entrepreneurs is a basic theme in current literature on social problems. That the needs of a collectivity spontaneously impose themselves on the attention of the community and its leaders is a notion that has long been largely discredited. Social problems are not defined exclusively, and sometimes not even primarily, in terms of objective conditions, but rather with regard to the interests and resources of potential entrepreneurs and their organizations and supporters. Accordingly, problems and their definitions change depending on who happens to occupy the socio-political scene and the particular interests that they are pursuing.

Moreover, conditions that may objectively be viewed as social problems can be neglected because no one sees them as an opportunity for action. Thus a particular segment of a collectivity may be ignored by its leaders simply because it is not perceived as offering interesting opportunities for entrepreneurial initiative. In short, community organization is not principally a function of the characteristics of the clientele and the external environment, but of the attributes of actual or potential entrepreneurs and the resources available to them. The clientele and the environment are relevant, but only as determinants of the structure within which entrepreneurs plan their projects.

The leadership initiative can come from either within or outside the ethnic collectivity. That is to say, the needs and problems of a community may be perceived as requiring intervention by individuals in the larger society, as well as from the collectivity itself. Instances of at least partially external leadership occurred in the early phases of the civil-rights movement in the United States and of the “red power” movement among native people in Canada. Several whites were active in the organization of activities within the black and native communities in order to bring about reforms that would be beneficial for the minorities.

Individuals in the larger society can also act as entrepreneurs with regard to opportunities for themselves and their organizations that they perceive in ethnic communities. This phenomenon has been observed, for example, among church leaders in competition for ethnic clienteles. Some have occasionally succeeded in channelling participation in their own organizations or establishing some control over ethnic religious organizations even though they are not themselves members of the particular community. Mainstream labour leaders and politicians have also attempted and sometimes succeeded in playing entrepreneurial roles within ethnic communities. And as we have already seen, the managers of government departments and agencies can become active in fostering ethnic community organization to aid the implementation of their own policies and programs.

The two kinds of processes involved in community organization usually exist simultaneously: there may be both a grassroots demand and entrepreneurs on the lookout for opportunities to act. The two interests may even coincide, yielding a community organization that mobilizes widespread support in the collectivity. To the extent that they diverge, however, a gap will grow between the organizational leadership and members of the community. Each will have a different perspective on what is problematic and requires action. This disparity appears to be more pronounced in some ethnic groups than in others – or at least, the perception of a gap is more frequently observed by members in some communities.

Even though the two types of processes tend to operate concurrently, they are not always of equal importance in community formation and functioning. For instance, in the immigrant generation the felt needs and aspirations of members may be an important factor in community organization, while among members of the second and later generations, who tend to be acculturated to institutions of the larger society, entrepreneurs would have a relatively more important role. As well, the administrative and financial support and the legitimacy provided by government policies and programs may favour entrepreneurial over social-demand processes.