Affirmative Advocacy: Race, Class, and Gender in Interest Group Politics (review)

In a majority-dominated, winner-takes-all political system, interest groups are considered crucial in representing minority voices. But, are formal organizations an effective means of advocating for these constituents’ interests, particularly if these interests call for social change? According to Michels and other critics of organizations, organizing efforts can become focused on maintaining the organization and pursuing more expedient goals, rather than original substantive goals. As a consequence, the interests of disadvantaged subgroups may languish even within organizations devoted to advocacy.

To document this, political scientist Dara Strolovitch draws upon survey data that she collected concerning the frequency and importance of activities within 286 advocacy groups devoted to promoting gender equality or women’s rights, equality or rights for particular racial groups, and economic justice. Strolovitch finds that the interests of intersectionally disadvantaged subgroups are not as well-represented as those of other subgroups. In other words, advocacy groups do not promote the interests of disadvantaged subgroups, such as low-income black women or gay Latino men, as often and extensively as they do for other relatively advantaged subgroups, such as middle-class white women or gay white men. Strolovitch concludes that advocacy groups inadvertently further the marginalization of disadvantaged subgroups.

A very interesting (but, unfortunately, not well explicated) finding concerns how perceptions of other organizations’ activities and framing of issues can facilitate or justify the inclusion or exclusion of subgroups’ interests. Interviews with the officers and staff of 40 organizations reveal that some advocacy groups’ leaders tend to over-estimate other groups’ activities in serving disadvantaged subgroups. Alternatively, leaders argue that by pursuing an advantaged subgroup’s interests, benefits will “trickle down” to disadvantaged subgroups. These perceptions and justifications raise tantalizing questions beyond Strolovitch’s speculative link between organizational maintenance and conservatism. For example, how do organizations conceptualize their niche relative to other organizations? How do organizations “know” what other organizations are doing? How do framing processes about interests and activities unfold within organizations? Future inquiries could delve further into additional conditions or factors (i.e., biases, institutional forces, etc.) that are more or less likely to generate conservatism.

For some readers, the study will also spark deliberation about the limits of relying on self-reports about organizing activities and priorities, particular when questions concern cleavages based on class, gender, race and ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Would archival research or observations bear out these self reports of organizational activities? Or, might observations and archives reveal activities, priorities, concerns, and organizational changes that are not adequately covered by self-reports?

These issues aside, Strolovitch’s strength lies in drawing attention to a thorny, long-standing question about representation. That is, how can organizations equitably represent a variety of constituents’ interests, particularly when some interests are viewed as particularistic to select groups, rather than commonly shared among all constituents? Might organizations avoid advocating for certain interests that could invite the stigmatization of the larger group? Practitioners will be most interested in the “best practices” outlined in a concluding chapter, as these suggest ways to increase organizational accountability to a wider range of members’ interests.

For considering such matters, this densely packed book is suitable for researchers in organizations, social movements and public policy. In general, this book contributes to the growing understanding of how formal organizations can shape inequality through both action and inaction. This and other recent books by sociologists suggest a promising convergence among researchers in organizations, social movements, inequality and urban sociology. If researchers continue to focus on organizations, we can gain deeper insight into how people are mobilized, resources are distributed, and ideologies are perpetuated (or altered). Perhaps, as Strolovitch suggests, we might even learn how to better design organizations to serve more of their constituents’ interests – an outcome that seems particularly pertinent as organizations and individuals become more intertwined.