Recently, a friend joined me for breakfast carrying a well-worn copy of Theda Skocpol’s Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life. The book, published in 2002, was deeply influential to my own thinking—and remains strikingly relevant to the work of the Groundwater Network today.
We sat across the old formica table where Mainers of all stripes caught up, did business, or had their coffee and eggs before the day. In some way poetic way, the scene paralleled what we do with the Groundwater Network: create a space where people who don’t usually meet can sit together, see one another clearly, and decide what must be done.
Skocpol calls this the “preeminent democratic art of combination.” It is the art of creating and sustaining civic spaces where diverse people come together, wrestle with differences, and act in common. That idea sits at the heart of our mission.
From Skocpol’s scholarship and our lived experience, three principles guide the Groundwater Network:
We need spaces where we dialogue with people who see things differently.
We need spaces that connect across class, sector, and race—while holding a clear racial analysis.
Connections must lead to action, grounded both locally and nationally.
As my colleague Deena Hayes-Greene reminds us: “The question isn’t whether there is going to be conflict, the question is whether we’ll stay at the table.”
Conflict and tension aren’t goals in themselves, but they are raw material for transformation. The Groundwater Network exists to hold a table where divergent perspectives are not only welcomed but necessary.
Skocpol’s historical research shows that the strongest civic federations in U.S. history practiced what she called “transpartisanship.” These groups intentionally created rules that allowed members of different political persuasions to collaborate, without subordinating themselves to a single party or viewpoint. They weren’t neutral or apolitical—they engaged issues robustly—but they refused to let ideological differences tear their associations apart..
Nonpartisanship did not mean withdrawal from politics, however. Not only could groups still foster good citizenship and encourage discussion of public issues; many also launched what might be called “transpartisan” efforts to achieve legislative goals.
Our work is not only about combining different viewpoints. It is also about bridging inequities.
At our table, some “have” what others “have not.” Each of us is differently situated—shaped by a mix of personal choices, historic advantages (or disadvantages), structural factors, and - in some cases - sheer good (or bad) luck. Skocpol emphasized that cross-class association is essential to democracy:
“Critical aspects of the classic civic America we have lost need to be reinvented—including shared democratic values, a measure of fellowship across class lines, and opportunities for the many to participate in organized endeavors alongside the elite few.”
She is equally clear that today's civic formations cannot simply copy civic models from the early 20th century without acknowledging the racial barriers that defined them. As she documented, most major federations explicitly excluded Black Americans well into the 20th century -- in many cases this deliberate segregation contained the seeds of their ultimate demise.
Our work, then, is to create spaces where racial analysis is explicit and where connection across material difference is possible. That is no easy task. Classism and racism shape not just our opportunities but our perceptions of what counts as urgent. For some, daily life revolves around safety, debt, or hard trade-offs; for others, threats to democracy and freedom dominate. Unless we sit together, even our shared concerns can be used to divide us.
Dialogue and connection are not enough. As leaders working voting rights in the South would often ask, the question must always be: “What, then, shall we do?”
Here Skocpol again offers guidance.
She observed that many grassroots groups remain too local and isolated, while many advocacy groups become top-heavy and disconnected from lived experience. She praised organizations that have found ways to combine the best of both—deep local organizing leveraged into national influence.
Writing in 2003, she even envisioned something resembling the Groundwater Network:
Future U.S. voluntary federations might weave ties among units situated in workplaces or religious congregations or other non-geographically defined settings. Leadership training, network building across sites; and transparent procedures for representative decision making are what count.
In this moment of division, distrust, and global upheaval, Skocpol’s call to revive the art of combination is more than an academic insight. It is a mandate.
The Groundwater Network takes up that charge, knowing the stakes are high and the promise of real, multiracial democracy requires it.
I’ll close with Audre Lorde, who we use in many of our programs. Her life and work demonstrated the principles Skocpol outlines - and principles we aspire to.
“You do not have to be me in order for us to fight alongside each other. I do not have to be you to recognize that our wars are the same. What we must do is commit ourselves to some future that can include each other and to work toward that future with the particular strengths of our individual identities. And in order to do this, we must allow each other our differences at the same time as we recognize our sameness.”
If this resonates with you, join us at the table.