Advertisement

How Civil Society Organizations Foster Insurgent Citizenship: Lessons from the Brazilian Landless Movement

Original Paper

Abstract

This paper describes how the Brazilian Landless Movement fostered an insurgent citizenship among the poor. We describe three core organizational practices of this movement that supported this insurgent citizenship. We find that these practices bear striking resemblance to the practices of other civil society organizations (CSOs), including social service organizations, when they support the empowerment of marginalized communities. The identification of common practices suggests that despite the differences among CSOs, these distinctions may be less stark than assumed and that there may be common causal pathways between CSOs and insurgent citizenship.

Keywords

Brazilian Landless Movement Social movement Social service Citizenship Civil society 

Re´sume´

Ce document décrit comment le Mouvement des sans terre du Brésil a favorisé une citoyenneté insurgée parmi les pauvres. Nous décrivons trois pratiques organisationnelles fondamentales de ce mouvement qui ont soutenu cette citoyenneté insurgée. Nous constatons que ces pratiques ressemblent étonnamment aux pratiques des autres organisations de la société civile (OSC), y compris les organismes de services sociaux, lorsqu’elles soutiennent l’autonomisation des communautés marginalisées. L’identification de pratiques communes semble indiquer que malgré les différences entre les OSC celles-là peuvent être moins marquées que prévu et qu’il peut exister des voies causales communes entre les OSC et la citoyenneté insurgée.

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Beitrag beschreibt, wie die brasilianische Landlosenbewegung eine aufständische Bürgerschaft unter Armen begünstigte. Wir beschreiben drei wesentliche organisatorische Praktiken dieser Bewegung, die diese aufständische Bürgerschaft unterstützte. Wir kommen zu dem Ergebnis, dass ihre Praktiken denen anderer Bürgergesellschaftsorganisationen, einschließlich Organisationen, die soziale Leitungen bereitstellen, äußerst ähnlich sind. Die geteilten Praktiken weisen darauf hin, dass trotz der Unterschiede zwischen den Bürgergesellschaftsorganisationen diese Unterschiede unter Umständen weniger stark ausgeprägt sind als bisher angenommen und es eventuell gemeinsame Kausalpfade zwischen Bürgergesellschaftsorganisationen und einer aufständischen Bürgerschaft gibt.

Resumen

El presente documento describe cómo el Movimiento Brasileño de los Sin Tierra fomentó una ciudadanía insurgente entre los pobres. Describimos tres prácticas organizativas centrales de este movimiento que apoyaron esta ciudadanía insurgente. Encontramos que estas prácticas se parecen sorprendentemente a las prácticas de otras organizaciones de la sociedad civil (CSO, del inglés civil society organizations), incluidas las organizaciones de servicios sociales, cuando apoyan el empoderamiento de comunidades marginadas. La identificación de prácticas comunes sugiere que, a pesar de las diferencias entre las CSO, estas distinciones pueden ser menos claras de lo asumido y que puede haber vías causales entre las CSO y la ciudadanía insurgente.

摘要

本文概述了巴西无土地运动如何增强穷人的叛乱公民权。我们介绍了本次支持这一叛乱公民权的运动的核心组织实践。我们发现,当支持边缘化社区的赋权时,这些实践与其他民间团体组织 (CSO) 的实践存在极大的相似性,包括社会服务组织。确定常见的实践表明,尽管CSO之间存在差别,但这些差别较假定的更少,同时CSO和叛乱公民权之间存在常见的因果路径。

要約

本論文では、どのようにブラジルの土地を持たない運動が貧しい反乱軍の市民を促進するかを提示する。この反乱軍の市民を支援する運動では3つの中心的組織の慣行について述べる。疎外されたコミュニティの権限付与を支援する場合、社会奉仕団体を含む他の市民社会組織(CSO)の慣行に著しい類似点があることがわかる。CSOの相違があるにもかかわらず、一般的な慣行の同定は厳しく、CSOと反乱軍の市民との間には一般的な因果関係があるといえる。

ملخص

يصف هذا البحث كيف أن حركة البرازيليين الذين ليس لهم أرض عززت التمرد لحقوق المواطنة بين الفقراء. وصفنا ثلاثة ممارسات تنظيمية أساسية لهذه الحركة التي دعمت هذا التمرد لحقوق المواطنة. نجد أن هذه الممارسات تحمل شبها˝ واضحا˝ لممارسات منظمات مجتمع مدني (CSOs) أخرى، بما في ذلك منظمات الخدمة الإجتماعية، عندما يدعمون تمكين المجتمعات المهمشة. تحديد الممارسات المشتركة تشير إلى أنه على الرغم من الإختلافات بين منظمات المجتمع المدني (CSOs)، قد تكون هذه الفروق أقل قوة من المفترض وأنه قد يكون هناك مسارات غير رسمية مشتركة بين منظمات المجتمع المدني (CSOs) و التمرد لحقوق المواطنة.

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the late Professor Ben Kohl of the Department of Geography and Urban Studies at Temple University and Linda Farthing for their excellent comments and suggestions on an earlier iteration of this paper.

References

  1. Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benford, R., & Snow, D. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benjamin, L. M. (2012). Nonprofit organizations and outcome measurement: From tracking program activities to focusing on frontline work. American Journal of Evaluation, 33(3), 431–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bogo, A. (2002). O Vigor da Mística. Sao Paulo: MST.Google Scholar
  5. Borkman, Thomasina Jo. (1999). Understanding self help/mutual aid: Experiential learning in the commons. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Boyce, W. F. (2001). Disadvantaged Persons’ Participation in health promotion projects: Some structural dimensions. Social Science & Medicine, 52, 1551–1564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Branford, S., & Rocha, J. (2002). Cutting the wire: The story of the landless movement in Brazil. London: Latin America Bureau.Google Scholar
  8. Carter, M. (2010). The landless rural workers movement and democracy in Brazil. Latin American Research Review, 45, 186–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carvalho, J. M. (2001). Cidadania no Brasil: O longo camino. Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira.Google Scholar
  10. Cnaan, R. (1991). Neighborhood-representing organizations: How democratic are they? Social Service Review, 65(4), 614–634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, A. (2009). Welfare clients’ volunteering as a means of empowerment. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(3), 522–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Comparato, B. (2003). A acao política do MST. Sao Paulo: Expressao Popular.Google Scholar
  13. Edin, K., & Lein, L. (1998). The private safety net: The role of charitable organizations in the lives of the poor. Housing Policy Debate, 9(3), 541–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fernandes, B. M. (1996). MST: Formacao e territorializacao em Sao Paulo. Sao Paulo: Hucitec.Google Scholar
  15. Fernandes, B. M. (2000). A formação do MST no Brasil. Petrópolis: Editora Vozes.Google Scholar
  16. Frumkin, P. (2002). On being nonprofit: A conceptual and policy primary. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gamson, W. (1991). Commitment and agency in social movements. Sociological Forum, 6(1), 27–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gaventa, J. (2002). Introduction: Exploring citizenship, participation and accountability. IDS Bulletin, 33(2), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goodwin, J., Jasper, J., & Polletta, F. (2001). Introduction: Why emotions matter. In J. Goodwin, J. Jasper, & F. Polletta (Eds.), Passionate politics: Emotions and social movements. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Görgen, S. (2002). O massacre da fazenda Santa Elmira. Petrópolis: Editora Vozes.Google Scholar
  21. Guo, C., & Saxton, G. D. (2010). Voice-in, voice-out: Constituent participation and nonprofit advocacy. Nonprofit Policy Forum, 1(1), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gutierrez, L. M. (1990). Working with women of color: An empowerment perspective. Social Work, 35, 149–154.Google Scholar
  23. Hammond, J. (1999). Law and disorder: The brazilian landless farmworkers’ movement. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 18(4), 469–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hardina, D. (2004). Linking citizen participation to empowerment practice. Journal of Community Practice, 11(4), 11–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hardina, D. (2005). Ten characteristics of empowerment oriented social service organizations. Administration in Social Work, 29(3), 23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hasenfeld, Z. (1987). Power in social work practice. Social Services Review, 61(3), 469–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hasenfeld, Z., & Garrow, E. (2012). Nonprofit human service organizations: Social rights and advocacy in a neoliberal welfare state. Social Service Review, 86(2), 295–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Holston, J. (1998). Spaces of insurgent citizenship. In L. Sandercock (Ed.), Making the invisible visible: A multicultural planning history. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  29. Holston, J. (2008). Insurgent citizenship: disjunctions of democracy and modernity in Brazil. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Houtzager, P. (2005). The movement of the landless (MST), juridical field, and legal change in Brazil. In B. Santos & C. Rodriguez-Garavito (Eds.), Law and globalization from below: Towards a cosmopolitan legality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Hunt, S., & Benford, R. (2007). Collective identity, solidarity, and commitment. In D. Snow, S. Soule, & H. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  32. Isin, E. (2002). Introduction: Democracy, citizenship and the city. In E. Isin (Ed.), Democracy, citizenship and the global city. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Issa, D. (2007). Praxis of empowerment: Mística and mobilization in Brazil’s landless rural workers’ movement. Latin American Perspectives, 34(2), 124–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jornal Sem Terra. (2004). Special edition, Assembleia popular na base do MST, May.Google Scholar
  35. Kabeer, N. (2005). Inclusive citizenship: Meanings and expressions, claiming citizenship. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  36. Karriem, A. (2009). The rise and transformation of the brazilian landless movement into a counter-hegemonic political actor: A gramscian analysis. Geoforum, 40(3), 316–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Karriem, A. (2013). Space, ecology, and politics in the praxis of brazil’s landless movement. In M. Ekers, G. Hart, S. Kipfer, & A. Loftus (Eds.), Gramsci: Space, ecology, politics. London: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  38. Kieffer, C. H. (1984). Citizen empowerment: A developmental perspective. Prevention in Human Services, 3(2–3), 9–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kissane, R. J. (2012). Poor women’s moral economies of nonprofit social service use: Conspicuous constraint and empowerment in the hollow state. Sociological Perspectives, 55(1), 189–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kissane, R. J., & Gingerich, J. (2004). Do you see what i see? Nonprofit and resident perceptions of urban neighborhood problems. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(2), 311–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kohl, B. (2003). Restructuring citizenship in Bolivia: El Plan de Todos. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(2), 337–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kramer, R. (1981). Voluntary agencies in the welfare state. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  43. Kretzmann, J. P., & McKnight, J. L. (1993). Building communities from the insight out: A path towards mobilizing a community’s assets. Chicago: ACTA Publications.Google Scholar
  44. Kymlicka, W., & Norman, W. (1994). Return of the citizen: A survey of recent work on citizenship theory. Ethics, 104, 352–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. LeRoux, K. (2009). Paternalistic or participatory governance? Examining opportunities for client participation in nonprofit social service organizations. Public Administration Review, 69(3), 505–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lister, R. (1998). Citizen in action: Citizenship and community development in a Northern Ireland context. Community Development Journal, 33(3), 226–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lister, R. (2003). Citizenship: Feminist perspectives (2nd ed.). Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  48. Marshall, T. H. (1950). Citizenship and social class and other essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Marston, S. (2003). Mobilizing geography: Locating space in social movement theory. Mobilization, 8(2), 227–233.Google Scholar
  50. Marston, S., & Mitchel, K. (2004). Citizens and the state: Citizenship formations in space and time. In C. Barnett & M. Low (Eds.), Spaces of citizenship: Geographical perspectives on citizenship, participation and representation. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  51. Medeiros, L., & Leite, S. (2004). Assentamentos rurais: Mudanca social e dinamica regional. Rio de Janeiro: Mauad.Google Scholar
  52. Meszaros, G. (2000a). No ordinary revolution: Brazil’s landless workers’ movement. Capital and Class, 42(2), 1–18.Google Scholar
  53. Meszaros, G. (2000b). Taking the land into their hands: The landless workers’ movement and the Brazilian state. Journal of Law and Society, 27, 517–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Milofsky, C. (1988). Community organizations: Studies in resource mobilization and exchange. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Morrisawa, M. (2001). A Historia da Luta Pela Terra e o MST. Sao Paulo: Expressao Popular.Google Scholar
  56. Navarro, Z. (1997). Sete teses equivocadas sobre as lutas no campo, o MST e a reforma agraria. In J. P. Stedile (Ed.), A Reforma Agraria e a Luta do MST (2nd ed.). Petropolis: Editora Vozes.Google Scholar
  57. Navarro, Z. (2002). O MST e a canonizacao da acao coletiva. In B. Santos (Ed.), Produzir para viver: Os caminhos da producao nao capitalista. Rio de Janeiro: Civilizacao Brasileira.Google Scholar
  58. Ondetti, G. (2006). Repression, opportunity, and protest: Explaining the takeoff of Brazil’s landless movement. Latin American Politics and Society, 48(2), 61–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ondetti, G. (2008). Land, protest, and politics: The landless movement and the struggle for agrarian reform in Brazil. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Petras, J., & Veltmeyer, H. (2003). Cardoso’s Brazil: a land for sale. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  61. Petras. J. (2000). The rural landless workers movement: The movement gains momentum. www.zmag.org.ZMag/articles/march2000petras.htm. Accessed 15 July 2007.
  62. Polletta, F., & Jasper, J. (2001). Collective identity and social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 283–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Rocha, E. M. (1997). A ladder of empowerment. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 17, 31–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Rossetto, N. (2005). Outro mundo se faz com terra para todas as pessoas. Democracia Viva, 25, 4–7.Google Scholar
  65. Salamon, L. (1990). America’s nonprofit sector: A primer. New York: Foundation Center.Google Scholar
  66. Snow, D., & Benford, R. (1988). Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. In B. Klandermans, H. Kriesi, & S. Tarrow (Eds.), From structure to action: Social movement participation across cultures. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  67. Staples, L., & Stein, R. (2008). The clubhouse model: Mental health consumer–provider partnerships for recovery (10th ed., pp. 177–196). England: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  68. Tilly, C. (1999). From interactions to outcomes in social movements. In M. Guigni, D. McAdam, & C. Tilly (Eds.), How social movements matter. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  69. Turner, B. S. (1990). Outline of a theory of citizenship. Sociology, 24(2), 189–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. N.A. (1997). A longa marcha: Diante da caminhada dos sem-terra, a pior escolha é ficar de bracos cruzados. Veja. Google Scholar
  71. Wittman, H. (2009). Reframing Agrarian citizenship: Land, life and power in Brazil. Journal of Rural Studies, 25, 120–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wolford, W. (2003a). Families, fields, and fighting for land: The spatial dynamic of contention in Brazil. Mobilization, 8(2), 201–215.Google Scholar
  73. Wolford, W. (2003b). Producing community: The MST and land reform settlements in Brazil. Journal of Agrarian Change, 3(4), 500–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wolford, W. (2004). This land is ours now: Spatial imaginaries and the struggle for land in Brazil. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 94(2), 409–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wright, A., & Wolford, W. (2003). To inherit the earth: The landless movement and the struggle for a new Brazil. Oakland, CA: Food First Books.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Social DevelopmentUniversity of the Western CapeBellville, Cape TownSouth Africa
  2. 2.The Lilly Family School of PhilanthropyIndiana UniversityIndianapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations