What do you think?
Rate this book
Freedom Is an Endless Meeting: Democracy in American Social Movements
Freedom Is an Endless Meeting offers vivid portraits of American experiments in participatory democracy throughout the twentieth century. Drawing on meticulous research and more than one hundred interviews with activists, Francesca Polletta challenges the conventional wisdom that participatory democracy is worthy in purpose but unworkable in practice. Instead, she shows that social movements have often used bottom-up decision making as a powerful tool for political change.
Polletta traces the history of democracy in early labor struggles and pre-World War II pacifism, in the civil rights, new left, and women's liberation movements of the sixties and seventies, and in today's faith-based organizing and anti-corporate globalization campaigns. In the process, she uncovers neglected sources of democratic inspiration—Depression-era labor educators and Mississippi voting registration workers, among them—as well as practical strategies of social protest. But Freedom Is an Endless Meeting also highlights the obstacles that arise when activists model their democracies after familiar nonpolitical relationships such as friendship, tutelage, and religious fellowship. Doing so has brought into their deliberations the trust, respect, and caring typical of those relationships. But it has also fostered values that run counter to democracy, such as exclusivity and an aversion to rules, and these have been the fault lines around which participatory democracies have often splintered. Indeed, Polletta attributes the fragility of the form less to its basic inefficiency or inequity than to the gaps between activists' democratic commitments and the cultural models on which they have depended to enact those commitments. The challenge, she concludes, is to forge new kinds of democratic relationships, ones that balance trust with accountability, respect with openness to disagreement, and caring with inclusiveness.
For anyone concerned about the prospects for democracy in America, Freedom Is an Endless Meeting will offer abundant historical, theoretical, and practical insights.
"This is an excellent study of activist politics in the United States over the past century. . . . Assiduously researched, impressively informed by a great number of thoughtful interviews with key members of American social movements, and deeply engaged with its subject matter, the book is likely to become a key text in the study of grass-roots democracy in America."—Kate Fullbrook, Times Literary Supplement
"Polletta's portrayal challenges the common assumption that morality and strategy are incompatible, that those who aim at winning must compromise principle while those who insist on morality are destined to be ineffective. . . . Rather than dwell on trying to explain the decline of 60s movements, Polletta shows how participatory democracy has become the guiding framework for many of today's activists."—Richard Flacks, Los Angeles Times Book Review
"In Freedom Is an Endless Meeting, Francesca Polletta has produced a remarkable work of historical sociology. . . . She provides the fullest theoretical work of historical sociology. . . . She provides the fullest theoretical picture of participatory democracy, rich with nuance, ambiguity, and irony, that this reviewer has yet seen. . . . This wise book should be studied closely by both academics and by social change activists."—Stewart Burns, Journal of American History
Polletta traces the history of democracy in early labor struggles and pre-World War II pacifism, in the civil rights, new left, and women's liberation movements of the sixties and seventies, and in today's faith-based organizing and anti-corporate globalization campaigns. In the process, she uncovers neglected sources of democratic inspiration—Depression-era labor educators and Mississippi voting registration workers, among them—as well as practical strategies of social protest. But Freedom Is an Endless Meeting also highlights the obstacles that arise when activists model their democracies after familiar nonpolitical relationships such as friendship, tutelage, and religious fellowship. Doing so has brought into their deliberations the trust, respect, and caring typical of those relationships. But it has also fostered values that run counter to democracy, such as exclusivity and an aversion to rules, and these have been the fault lines around which participatory democracies have often splintered. Indeed, Polletta attributes the fragility of the form less to its basic inefficiency or inequity than to the gaps between activists' democratic commitments and the cultural models on which they have depended to enact those commitments. The challenge, she concludes, is to forge new kinds of democratic relationships, ones that balance trust with accountability, respect with openness to disagreement, and caring with inclusiveness.
For anyone concerned about the prospects for democracy in America, Freedom Is an Endless Meeting will offer abundant historical, theoretical, and practical insights.
"This is an excellent study of activist politics in the United States over the past century. . . . Assiduously researched, impressively informed by a great number of thoughtful interviews with key members of American social movements, and deeply engaged with its subject matter, the book is likely to become a key text in the study of grass-roots democracy in America."—Kate Fullbrook, Times Literary Supplement
"Polletta's portrayal challenges the common assumption that morality and strategy are incompatible, that those who aim at winning must compromise principle while those who insist on morality are destined to be ineffective. . . . Rather than dwell on trying to explain the decline of 60s movements, Polletta shows how participatory democracy has become the guiding framework for many of today's activists."—Richard Flacks, Los Angeles Times Book Review
"In Freedom Is an Endless Meeting, Francesca Polletta has produced a remarkable work of historical sociology. . . . She provides the fullest theoretical work of historical sociology. . . . She provides the fullest theoretical picture of participatory democracy, rich with nuance, ambiguity, and irony, that this reviewer has yet seen. . . . This wise book should be studied closely by both academics and by social change activists."—Stewart Burns, Journal of American History
295 pages, Paperback
First published October 1, 2002
21 people are currently reading
503 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
July 11, 2020
Freedom is an Endless Meeting was quite fascinating - a study of groups working to achieve a level of participatory democracy or direct action, while balancing structure with latitude for innovation; the strength of friendships vs. openness to new participants; reform vs. radical change; managing clashes of values. Many of the examples resonated with me from experiences with different types of groups.
I think my take-away was creating groups that can be flexible in its structure and decision-making to better adapt to slow times and dynamic episodes. This is probably best suppored by building leadership abilities within the group: "More important than an orientation to consensus, however, what I am calling the deliberative aspects of participatory democratic decisionmaking can build solidarity by pressing participants to recognize the legitimacy of other people’s reasoning. The process of decisionmaking makes for a greater acceptance of the differences that coexist with shared purposes. In fact, consensus often aims not to arrive at a position or policy agreed to unanimously in all its particulars but to delineate a range of individual positions that are consistent with a group position. By requiring that participants take seriously each other’s concerns and priorities, the process balances individual initiative with solidarity, both of which are critical to successful collective action. This may be the case as much during the doldrums of political quiescence as in the thick of mobilization. While a bureaucratic structure may be better able to preserve an organization in name during fallow periods, a participatory democratic one is more likely to preserve strong bonds among a group of movement stalwarts. When political conditions make wider mobilization possible again, these sustaining organizations offer a pool of activists capable of training new leaders and providing strategic and tactical advice" (p.9).
I think my take-away was creating groups that can be flexible in its structure and decision-making to better adapt to slow times and dynamic episodes. This is probably best suppored by building leadership abilities within the group: "More important than an orientation to consensus, however, what I am calling the deliberative aspects of participatory democratic decisionmaking can build solidarity by pressing participants to recognize the legitimacy of other people’s reasoning. The process of decisionmaking makes for a greater acceptance of the differences that coexist with shared purposes. In fact, consensus often aims not to arrive at a position or policy agreed to unanimously in all its particulars but to delineate a range of individual positions that are consistent with a group position. By requiring that participants take seriously each other’s concerns and priorities, the process balances individual initiative with solidarity, both of which are critical to successful collective action. This may be the case as much during the doldrums of political quiescence as in the thick of mobilization. While a bureaucratic structure may be better able to preserve an organization in name during fallow periods, a participatory democratic one is more likely to preserve strong bonds among a group of movement stalwarts. When political conditions make wider mobilization possible again, these sustaining organizations offer a pool of activists capable of training new leaders and providing strategic and tactical advice" (p.9).
March 27, 2008
I thought this book was relatively readable and enjoyable, less academic, more movement-y, and this author stands out as insightful, accessible and relevant in the field of Social Movement Theory. In general I find social movement theory to be the most dry boring self-referential and irrelevant possible way to think about movement building.
February 23, 2008
the title says it all.
December 16, 2024
“What comes across in the stories that Myles Horton tells, in SNCC workers’ tales of best organizers, and in the broader literature on organizing is good organizers’ creativity: their ability to respond to local conditions, to capitalize on sudden opportunities, to turn to advantage a seeming setback, to know when to exploit teachable moments and when to concentrate on winning an immediate objective. Sometimes you insist on fully participatory decision-making; sometimes you do not. Albany SNCC project head Charles Sherrod urged fellow organizers not to “let the project go to the dogs because you feel you must be democratic to the letter.” Horton recounted on numerous occasions an experience that he had had in a union organizing effort. At the time, the highway patrol was escorting scabs through the picket line, and the strike committee was at its wit’s end about how to counter this threat to strikers’ solidarity. After considering and rejecting numerous proposals, exhausted committee members demanded advice from Horton. When he refused, one of them pulled a gun. “I was tempted then to become an instant expert, right on the spot!” Horton confessed. “But I knew that if I did that, all would be lost and then all of the rest of them would start asking me what to do. So I said: ‘No. Go ahead and shoot if you want to, but I’m not going to tell you.’ And the others calmed him down.”
Giving in would have defeated the purpose of persuading the strikers that they had the knowledge to make the decision themselves. But Horton sometimes told another story. When he was once asked to speak to a group of Tennessee farmers about organizing a cooperative, he knew, he said, that since “their expectation was that I would speak as an expert… if I didn’t speak, and said, ‘let’s have a discussion about this,’ they’d say, that this guy doesn’t know anything.” So Horton “made a speech, the best speech I could. Then after it was over, while we were still there, I said, let’s discuss what I have said. Well now, that was just one step removed, but close enough to their expectation that I was able to carry them along… You do have to make concessions like that.” What better time to make a concession than when you’re looking down the barrel of a gun? Horton presumably knew that he could get away with refusing to be an expert in the first situation and not in the second. Perhaps the difference was that he was unknown to the farmers and was known to the strikers. But one could argue that a relationship with a history could tolerate aberrant exercises of leadership while first impressions die harder. In other words, extracting rules from the stories that Horton tells is difficult. When to lead and when to defer, when to ask leadings questions and when to remain silent, when to focus on the limited objective and when to encourage people to see the circumscribed character of that objective – the answers depend on the situation and are not always readily evident.”
Giving in would have defeated the purpose of persuading the strikers that they had the knowledge to make the decision themselves. But Horton sometimes told another story. When he was once asked to speak to a group of Tennessee farmers about organizing a cooperative, he knew, he said, that since “their expectation was that I would speak as an expert… if I didn’t speak, and said, ‘let’s have a discussion about this,’ they’d say, that this guy doesn’t know anything.” So Horton “made a speech, the best speech I could. Then after it was over, while we were still there, I said, let’s discuss what I have said. Well now, that was just one step removed, but close enough to their expectation that I was able to carry them along… You do have to make concessions like that.” What better time to make a concession than when you’re looking down the barrel of a gun? Horton presumably knew that he could get away with refusing to be an expert in the first situation and not in the second. Perhaps the difference was that he was unknown to the farmers and was known to the strikers. But one could argue that a relationship with a history could tolerate aberrant exercises of leadership while first impressions die harder. In other words, extracting rules from the stories that Horton tells is difficult. When to lead and when to defer, when to ask leadings questions and when to remain silent, when to focus on the limited objective and when to encourage people to see the circumscribed character of that objective – the answers depend on the situation and are not always readily evident.”
April 27, 2022
Using interviews, memoirs, and detailed examination of meeting minutes, Polletta counters some of the accepted wisdom about the debates on structure in SNCC, SDS, and radical feminist groups. I found it very helpful, a lot to think about. Towards the end she looks at Direct Action Network, and I am very interested in the formal consensus rules I read about in David Graeber's book about them, and in fact, Polletta talks with several people from DAN and Graeber is one of them, presumably before his celebrity beyond activist circles. If you're in a group, and it's basically a small group of friends, and now the politics is threatening your friendships, or new people are not being included in decisions, I would strongly recommend this book. At the very least it details what not to do.
August 19, 2025
Took me a while, but it was worth it. About halfway through reading a borrowed e copy from a library I knew it was a book I needed on my shelf.
Whether you or I know it or not, we’ve benefited in some way or other from people who organized themselves and, more likely than not, tried to make decisions using equality as their ideal. The degree to which they successfully have achieved this varies, as do the successes of their campaigns. A lot of truly valuable lessons to be learned here.
Whether you or I know it or not, we’ve benefited in some way or other from people who organized themselves and, more likely than not, tried to make decisions using equality as their ideal. The degree to which they successfully have achieved this varies, as do the successes of their campaigns. A lot of truly valuable lessons to be learned here.
July 3, 2023
A classic of the genre and a must read. However it has left me deeply perplexed, both for the method and for the content. As a story about a few political movements of the 1960s it's interesting and very captivating, but as a source for learnings about self-organisation it has me constantly confused about its definition of "participatory democracy" and a number of other things.
did-not-finish
September 1, 2016Had this checked out from the library for 6 months, trying to work myself up to reading it -- the content was interesting but the academic prose was snooze city. Since I have no obligation to finish but do have a ginormous pile of other books to read, I'm calling it a DNF on p32.
July 28, 2014
It has some very interesting theses - but the writing was making me sleep.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews