My eyes are now tuned to see power in the ways in which we organize to do work.
Sometimes power is visibly obvious to everyone involved. Sometimes it is more nuanced.
Often, it exists in ways that seem reasonable and rational. Until we start to question underlying assumptions; why is it that way, exactly? What are folks assuming? And in the context of the environmental justice work to which I am now contributing, how do we shift the power to communities and facilitate their creative capacity to address challenges?
As a learning guy, I now find myself looking at power and how “education” and learning are applied as solutions to environmental justice challenges.
Why is it that citizens are always the object of “education” efforts? That citizens must bear the learning burden? “We should educate the community about [insert city programs or policies].”
Where are the programs and policies which make city staff and civic leaders the object of learning efforts about the community which they serve? Where do citizens lead the teaching, about the topic with which they are most expert: Their lived experiences? Or better, where do city staff, civic leaders and citizens engage to collaboratively explore a challenge, as equal learning partners?
I write this as I am drawn into a discussion to review the draft final report of the Evanston Environmental Equity Investigation (EEI). The folks who are kind enough to include me (a novice to environmental justice) are Evanston folks with deep expertise in the topic, and who were instrumental in moving the city to commit budget and resources to do the equity investigation. (See Three ways of framing the environmental justice problem, by the folks who know., Update: Evanston environmental justice).
As they look at the draft report, their minds, too, are drawn to the implicit power structures woven throughout the report’s recommendations. I may write more about this as their comments on the draft report become public.
But it’s clear that they desire to change the power game – to shift power to the community – to better implement a set of very productive ideas and impact the vision outlined by Evanston’s environmental justice resolution:
“Environmental Justice (EJ) is when every resident experiences the same degree of access to environmental assets, protection from environmental hazards and health risks, and an opportunity to play an effective role in making decisions that affect the quality of life in this community.”
An opportunity to play an effective role in making decisions that affect the quality of life in this community. This is where the interpretation of citizen power will play out.
The default approach is to rely on citizen organizations and not-for-profits to be “the voice” in providing feedback about potential decisions made by the city. This is all good, and necessary. But it doesn’t change the fundamental power dynamic. The city holds all the resources and power. Citizens are, at best, advocates. At worst, items on a checkbox; “yep, we talked to the community.”
Not surprisingly, this is a well-known dilemma in citizen participation. The Arnstein Ladder (from 1969) emerged from research that characterizes citizen participation as existing on a ladder, with rungs grouped (low-to-high) into non-participation, tokenism and citizen power (partnership, delegated power or citizen control).
Asset Based Community Development, a way of seeing communities and change that emerged in the 1980s, interprets the Arnstein Ladder as four rungs:
- Residents as recipients
- Residents as information sources
- Residents as advisors/advocates
- Residents in control
(See Asset Based Community Development, design justice, and signals from the universe for more on citizen power).
Another (more recent) framing of citizen power comes from Peter Block’s Activating the Common Good – Reclaiming Control of our Collective Well-being.
The framing centers around contrasting society’s current dominant narrative – which Block tags as the “business perspective” – with the potential of a common good perspective.
Block summarizes the business perspective as confining citizens to the role of consumer. We can see this in our civic lives, where local governments talk about their efforts as “services.” We – the community – then step into our role as consumers and demand more efficient, or less costly, or higher quality services. This is how we live out our roles within the business narrative.
The common good perspective, on the other hand, emphasizes our role as citizen-leaders who can invent ways to achieve health, safety and well-being. In this role we believe we have the “cooperative capacity” to produce well-being for ourselves and others. We build relationships and collaborate rather than “consume.”
The draft Environmental Equity Investigation report does hint at models which address these issues and potentially move citizens up the power ladder. The establishment of environmental justice (EJ) “green zones,” for example, would declare specific neighborhoods as EJ focus areas and create the potential for local-citizen-led partnerships to address issues and increase green investment. The report also notes how the City of Seattle established an Environmental Justice fund to which community groups can apply for grants. The fund is supported via city taxes and in 2025 made $740,000 available for grants.
These are really intriguing models and provide an opportunity for Evanston to adapt them in ways which fit our specific community history and ways-of-working.
But for me a more personal effort will be to find a way to change the power balance when it comes to education and learning.
- Citizens designing and facilitating an education program for city staff and leaders to learn about the community’s lived experiences.
- City staff being seconded to work with community groups on EJ efforts.
- Community members, city staff and city leaders joining together in an action-learning project to explore and address EJ challenges.
- An annual EJ learning conference, designed jointly by citizen leaders and city staff, to explore key topics for the year, and how Evanston might address them.
I can imagine many more variations on this theme. The point is – to borrow from Arnstein’s top ladder rung – create a partnership, delegate real power, or give absolute control to citizen leaders over the learning. They move from objects to subject-makers. That seems like a productive power shift.
The photographs which accompany these posts are taken by me, and show different settings and views of Evanston (where I live). It is a visual reminder that this is the most important setting for belonging and contributing to community: our neighborhoods, our cities.
Jeff Merrell 