Many Interaction Orders: Political Socialization and the Organizational Ecology of Housing Justice

                                                     MANY INTERACTION ORDERS:

                                        Political Socialization and the Organizational Ecology of Housing Justice

                                                                                                Wayne Martin Mellinger, Ph.D.

Studies in Symbolic Interaction — Base Manuscript Draft

Abstract

How do ordinary people become politically competent actors? Social movement scholarship has generated sophisticated accounts of mobilization, framing, and collective identity but has devoted comparatively little attention to formation — the developmental process through which participants are transformed into activists capable of testifying before county supervisors, training new leaders, navigating institutional governance, and sustaining organized political life across years. Framing theory explains the discursive products of movement life; it does not explain how framing competence is acquired. Oliver Fillieule identified this as the central lacuna of political socialization research: we have studied participation, not formation. Drawing on the two interactionist traditions — symbolic interactionism (Mead, Blumer, Goffman) and ethnomethodology (Garfinkel, Rawls, Turowetz) — and on Christoph Haug's concept of the meeting arena as movement infrastructure, this paper proposes an interactionist theory of activist formation. Grounded in three decades of participant observation in the Santa Barbara, California housing justice movement, I argue that political socialization occurs through participation in multiple, constitutive interaction orders nested within the meeting arenas of a movement's organizational ecology. Each interaction order produces specific competencies — narrative, diagnostic, deliberative, representational, organizational, discursive, moral, strategic, and mediational — that accumulate across an activist career into democratic capacity. Frames are not merely persuasive ideas; they are interactionally acquired competencies. Social movements, on this account, are pedagogical institutions: they teach people how to become political actors, and the housing justice movement in Santa Barbara makes that teaching process visible.

I. Walking Through Multiple Worlds: An Autoethnographic Entry Point

The idea came to me not in a library or seminar room but on an ordinary Tuesdaddddddddy afternoon, walking through Ventura after a morning court appearance. Inside the courthouse I had been questioned sharply by a prosecutor and reprimanded by a judge — a ritual drama of authority and submission where every muscle in one's face must be managed with exquisite care. The courtroom is its own dense moral universe: turn-taking is rigidly enforced, glances are monitored, silences carry legal weight, and even a slight mis-timing of a response can bring reprimand or contempt charges. You feel the institution pressing through you. You become aware of every gesture your body might betray. This was the interaction order in its most formal, institutionalized, punitive form, and leaving it felt like stepping out of a thick moral atmosphere into something else entirely.

Outside, only fifty feet from the courthouse steps, I encountered a different reality. A Black man stood waiting at the bus stop — shoulders drawn in, eyes moving carefully, posture tightened by decades of inherited caution. I offered a quiet "How's it going?" and he paused, appraising me with the long history that sits silently between Black and white Americans. Before either of us spoke more than a sentence, the racialized interaction order made itself known: the fragility of trust, the calculations of safety, the awareness that misrecognition can be deadly. His hesitation was not personal; it was historical. This brief encounter carried the full weight of what Anne Warfield Rawls and Waverly Duck call "distinct interaction orders" — parallel moral worlds produced by the long violence of racial hierarchy.

Walking downhill toward the ocean, I drifted into the relaxed choreography of the Ventura promenade. Tourists ambled in loose arcs — laughing, pausing, adjusting sunglasses, stretching out their steps in ways that signal comfort without needing to think about it. Here the interaction order is defined by leisure: bodies open, gaze relaxed, time abundant. And nothing in this world could prepare you for what lies on the far side of the railroad trestle.

Crossing that threshold, I entered the cruising zone near Emma Wood State Beach, a world with its own choreography — somatic, coded, and historically shaped by persecution. Here the gaze is never simple. A glance might be an invitation, or a safety check, or a warning. Bodies communicate through angle, gait, and micro-movements more than through words. The interaction order here is neither institutional nor leisurely; it is furtive, erotic, semi-clandestine, operating through a lexicon of desire and risk that predates Stonewall and persists in pockets of hidden life.

A few minutes farther and I dropped down the embankment into the Ventura River Bottom, the place where I have done homeless outreach for fourteen years. Camps cluster beneath overpasses and along the riverbed — some built from couch cushions lashed into walls, some framed with bamboo and draped with tarps, some decorated with anarchist slogans or Chumash-inspired pictographs. This interaction order is shaped by scarcity, trauma, and constant threat. People learn to read footsteps on gravel, the rustle of tree rats, the approach of raccoons who enter tents like entitled landlords. The river bottom has its own moral ecology: a mix of mutual aid, territoriality, deep suspicion, and improvised care.

My walk that afternoon — courtroom to bus stop to boardwalk to cruising ground to encampment — made something unmistakably clear. There is not one interaction order. There are many. They do not merely vary by situation; they vary by history, trauma, race, gender, sexuality, institutional power, and the stark asymmetries of housing and safety. Any theory of the interaction order that cannot account for this plurality is inadequate to the world we actually inhabit.

But this paper pushes that insight further. The pluralization of interaction orders is not only a descriptive observation about the variety of social life. It is the explanatory mechanism through which a larger phenomenon can be understood: the production of politically competent actors. How does a person who has slept in the Ventura River Bottom become someone who testifies before the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors? How does someone who has never spoken at a public meeting become the person who chairs a county advisory committee? How does lived experience of housing precarity become political authority? These questions are not answered by noting that multiple interaction orders exist. They are answered by tracing the developmental trajectory through which people move across those orders — and what they learn at each stop.

This paper proposes an interactionist theory of activist formation grounded in three decades of participant observation in the Santa Barbara, California housing justice movement. Its central claim is that social movements are organizational ecologies of constitutive interaction orders through which politically competent actors are produced. The housing justice movement in Santa Barbara makes this production process visible with unusual clarity — and this paper is an attempt to theorize what that clarity reveals.

The argument advances six interlocking contributions, developed across the sections that follow. It proposes a plural theory of interaction orders, extending Goffman beyond his own universalizing assumption that a single interaction order governs social life. It develops an interactionist theory of activist formation, specifying the mechanism by which ordinary people become political actors — a mechanism that existing social movement theory has largely presupposed rather than explained. It offers a competency theory of political socialization, identifying nine analytically distinct competencies and the interaction orders that cultivate each. It builds a nested model of organizational ecology that integrates meeting-level, order-level, and sequential-interactional analysis into a single architecture. It extends Christoph Haug's concept of the meeting arena by opening the black box of the meeting itself, showing that a single arena typically contains multiple distinct interaction orders rather than one undifferentiated occasion. And it extends interaction-order theory to the hybrid, digitally mediated settings that increasingly constitute contemporary movement life, demonstrating that the theoretical apparatus developed here for face-to-face encounters generalizes without requiring a separate theory for online activism. Each of these contributions is developed in turn, beginning with the theoretical foundations on which the entire argument rests.

The walk through Ventura revealed that everyday life unfolds across multiple interaction orders, each governed by different expectations, obligations, and forms of recognition. Observation alone, however, cannot explain how people learn to move competently among these worlds or how social movements deliberately cultivate those capacities. To answer those questions requires returning to the interactionist tradition that first treated interaction itself as a distinct object of sociological inquiry.

II. Two Interactionisms: The Theoretical Foundation

A. The First Interactionism: Symbolic Interactionism

George Herbert Mead's social psychology provides the foundational framework for understanding how participation transforms persons. For Mead, the self is not a private possession but an interactional achievement: it arises through the internalization of the attitudes of others, culminating in the "generalized other" — that organized community of perspectives which the individual carries as a guide to conduct (Mead 1934). Mind, self, and society are not separate domains but dimensions of a single process of social becoming. What Mead bequeathed to subsequent interactionists was not merely a theory of socialization but an account of how organized social life is reproduced through individual participation in shared symbolic practices.

This paper proposes a significant extension of Mead's framework: the pluralization of the generalized other. Activists do not internalize a single organized community of perspectives. They internalize multiple, partially incompatible communities of judgment — one associated with each interaction order they have inhabited across their activist career. The person who has participated for years in peer support circles, organizing meetings, county advisory bodies, and public memorial vigils carries not one generalized other but many. The productive tension among these multiple communities of judgment is not a failure of socialization but a condition of political life. It is precisely this complexity of internalized perspectives that makes experienced activists capable of navigating institutional settings that exclude newcomers.

Herbert Blumer's elaboration of symbolic interactionism provides the bridge between individual transformation and organizational life (Blumer 1969). For Blumer, human beings act toward things on the basis of the meanings those things have for them; meanings arise through social interaction; and meanings are handled and modified through an interpretive process. This triadic formula carries significant implications for activist formation: the encounter, the meeting, the vigil, and the training session are not merely vehicles for expressing pre-formed identities and beliefs. They are the sites in which identities and beliefs are continually constituted and reconstituted. Blumer's concept of joint action — the interlinkage of individual acts into a coordinated social enterprise — extends this insight to collective phenomena: the movement makes its members as its members make the movement.

B. Goffman's Foundational Insight and Its Limits

Mead and Blumer established that selves and meanings emerge through interaction. But they left a prior question largely unanswered: what is the structural organization of interaction itself? Erving Goffman’s 1983 Presidential Address to the American Sociological Association made a bold claim: face-to-face interaction constitutes a distinct domain of social reality — a sui generis order with its own logics, obligations, temporalities, and moral demands (Goffman 1983). This was not simply an argument about the importance of micro-level behavior. Goffman was making a stronger theoretical claim: the interaction order is neither reducible to individual psychology nor determined by social structure. It is its own thing, with its own enabling conventions that emerge from the existential condition of selves who need interaction to exist at all.

For Goffman, three insights formed the core of this argument. First, the interaction order produces the social self: the self is "a dramaturgical effect arising diffusely from a scene that is presented" (Goffman 1959:253). Second, the interaction order is fundamentally moral: participation in interaction entails a commitment to mutual face protection that precedes and underlies all strategic action. Third, the interaction order may resist institutional demands: even in total institutions, inhabitants carve out zones of dignity that assert the interaction order's requirements against institutional constraint.

Yet Goffman's account remained incomplete in one crucial respect: he universalized. He wrote about "the interaction order" as if there were only one — as if the background expectancies he observed in university settings, psychiatric hospitals, and casinos were the ground rules of human interaction generally. He treated civil inattention as a universal norm when it is a distinctly white middle-class practice. He assumed face-work operates the same way for everyone when gender, race, sexuality, and class radically alter how face is claimed, granted, and defended. Most importantly for the argument of this paper, he did not theorize the possibility that some social differences produce not different frames on a shared order but fractured orders operating according to incompatible moral grammars — or that movement organizations might deliberately construct alternative interaction orders as a form of political resistance.

C. The Second Interactionism: EMCA and Constitutive Social Order

It is precisely at this limit — where Goffman’s universalism breaks down — that the second interactionist tradition becomes indispensable. Ethnomethodology and conversation analysis shift the foundational interactionist question. Where symbolic interactionism asks how meanings, selves, and identities emerge through interaction, the second interactionism asks how interaction itself is possible. Harold Garfinkel, Harvey Sacks, Anne Warfield Rawls, and Jason Turowetz investigate how participants produce recognizable, accountable, and mutually intelligible social action — the practical methods by which ordinary people constitute the social order they inhabit (Garfinkel 1967; Rawls 1987; Turowetz and Rawls 2021).

This distinction, developed explicitly by Turowetz and Rawls, is foundational for the present paper. The social movement literature has remained almost entirely within the first interactionism: it analyzes meanings, identities, and frames without asking how the interaction orders within which those are produced constitute the conditions of their possibility. This paper imports the second interactionism into social movement analysis. It asks not what activists mean but how they become constituted as competent participants in the multiple normative worlds of movement life.

Following Rawls, the paper treats Goffman as belonging with the second tradition rather than the first. The interaction order is a constitutive social order — it determines who may speak, what counts as competent participation, how accountability is organized, and how members recognize one another as legitimate. This is not a setting within which meaning-making occurs; it is the normative infrastructure that makes meaning-making possible at all. Anne Warfield Rawls deepened this insight by demonstrating that the interaction order is moral in the strongest sense: its obligations are constitutive, not merely conventional, and their violation threatens the ontological security of all participants (Rawls 1987; 2009).

D. Rawls on Race and the Plurality of Orders

In her collaborative research with Waverly Duck, Rawls demonstrated that the interaction order is not singular but plural — and that this plurality is structured by race (Rawls and Duck 2020). Black Americans and white Americans do not inhabit the same interaction order. They live in different moral worlds with incompatible background expectancies, shaped by distinct historical and institutional experiences. What Goffman conceptualized as the shared substrate of social interaction is, in practice, fractured.

The evidence for this fracturing appears at every level. White Americans expect transparency and good faith in interaction; Black Americans have learned through bitter experience to expect surveillance and suspicion. White Americans can take civil inattention for granted; Black Americans know that white attention is rarely civil and often dangerous. These are not simply different attitudes within a shared interaction order. They are different interaction orders — with different rules, different moral obligations, different phenomenologies of danger.

This insight — that race fractures the interaction order itself — represents Rawls' most important extension of Goffman. It shows that we cannot speak of "the" interaction order as if it were a universal substrate of human sociality. There are multiple interaction orders, historically produced, morally distinct, and unequally distributed. This paper generalizes this insight: class position, housing precarity, and bureaucratic categorization similarly generate distinct interaction orders — and the housing justice movement's organizational ecology is constituted precisely by the encounter and partial transformation of these unequal interaction orders.

E. Smith on Homelessness and Practical Competence

What does this fracturing of the interaction order look like in the specific context of homelessness? Robin James Smith’s ethnographic work on street-level interaction in homeless settings provides the closest empirical precedent to the present paper’s approach (Smith and Hall 2018). Smith's analysis of outreach workers' "street literacy" — the embodied, situationally sensitive competence through which skilled practitioners read and navigate the interaction orders of marginal spaces — demonstrates that what appears as social disorder from outside is, from within, a highly organized interactional world with its own logic, norms, and moral expectations.

Smith's most distinctive contribution concerns the position of the outreach worker: she inhabits an interstitial position, belonging to and translating between the interaction order of the professional service world and the interaction order of the street. This double membership, and the constant translational work it requires, is precisely what the formerly unhoused activists at the center of this paper have learned to do — not between service provider and client, but between the interaction orders of movement life and the interaction orders of institutional governance. The competencies required for that translation — street literacy, institutional literacy, and the ability to move between them — are acquired through participation in specific, recurring interaction orders within the movement's organizational ecology.

Dorothy E. Smith’s institutional ethnography supplies a complementary resource for understanding how the interaction orders examined in this paper are documented, coordinated, and made institutionally actionable (Smith 1987; 2005). Smith argues that ruling relations — the textually mediated forms of coordination through which institutions organize people’s lives — are not external to everyday interaction but are produced and reproduced through it. The forms filled out at intake, the vulnerability scores entered into HMIS, the meeting minutes that travel from a subcommittee to a funding decision: these are not neutral records of what happens in the interaction orders this paper examines. They are the textual apparatus through which those interaction orders are coordinated with the wider institutional field, and through which what happens inside them becomes legible, fundable, or actionable — or, just as often, illegible and invisible. The present paper’s attention to documentary practices throughout the organizational ecology, from the field notes of street outreach to the HMIS entries of governance work, owes a methodological debt to Smith’s insistence that texts are not incidental to institutional life but constitutive of it.

These two interactionist traditions — symbolic interactionism’s account of meaning and self, and EMCA’s account of constitutive social order — provide the analytical tools the paper needs. But they do not, by themselves, explain social movements. For that, a different body of scholarship must be engaged: the social movement literature, which has mapped collective action with considerable sophistication while leaving one foundational question almost entirely unaddressed.

III. Social Movement Theory and the Developmental Gap

A. What the Existing Literatures Explain

The political process tradition has mapped the macro-level conditions of collective action with considerable power (McAdam 1982; Tarrow 1994; Tilly 1978). Political opportunity structures, elite alignments, and state capacity for repression shape what movements can accomplish at any given historical moment. Tilly's concept of the repertoire of contention captures the historically available toolkit from which movements select their characteristic forms of action — marches, petitions, demonstrations, occupations, public testimony, coalition meetings. These accounts provide an indispensable macro-level map of the political landscape within which the Santa Barbara housing justice movement operates.

Resource mobilization theory adds organizational and economic dimensions. McCarthy and Zald's foundational argument holds that movements succeed or fail partly as a function of their capacity to accumulate and deploy resources: money, personnel, organizational infrastructure, media access, and technical expertise (McCarthy and Zald 1977). Cress and Snow's study of homeless social movement organizations in eight U.S. cities specifies these requirements for poor people's movements in particular: moral support, material resources, informational resources — strategic knowledge and technical assistance — and human resources including leadership and membership (Cress and Snow 1996). Their framework explains what such organizations need. An interaction-order perspective asks how those resources are interactionally produced.

Framing theory, developed from Snow and Benford's elaboration of Goffman's concept of frame, has been symbolic interactionism's most influential contribution to movement scholarship (Snow et al. 1986; Snow and Benford 1988). Collective action frames are interpretive schemas that name problems, assign blame, propose solutions, and call people to action. Snow, Vliegenthart, and Ketelaars' authoritative 2019 review of framing research acknowledges that the field still lacks detailed research on how frames are produced through discursive processes. That is the gap this paper fills. Van Dijk's parallel critique of framing theory is equally direct: frames do not explain themselves; framing research lacks an account of how framing competence is socially produced (Van Dijk 2023). Frames are not merely persuasive ideas; they are interactionally acquired competencies.

Christoph Haug's work on meeting arenas provides the organizational concept that anchors the present analysis (Haug 2013; 2015). Haug argues that social movement theory has paid insufficient attention to meetings as organizational infrastructure. His concept of the meeting arena — recurring spaces where organizations coordinate, alliances form, information circulates, conflicts are negotiated, identities are reinforced, and strategies emerge — identifies exactly the organizational settings within which the present paper's empirical analysis is situated. Where Haug's contribution is organizational, the present paper opens the black box of the meeting arena and shows that what appears as one meeting is interactionally a succession of different orders, each performing different developmental work.

William Housley's interactionist account of digital society argues that identity, meaning, and social organization continue to be accomplished through interaction even when that interaction is technologically mediated — platforms and algorithms reshape interactional processes without replacing them (Housley 2021). That argument licenses a claim this paper makes directly: twenty-first-century movement ecologies increasingly extend beyond physical meeting arenas into digitally mediated interaction orders, which are not secondary or derivative forms of interaction but interaction orders in the full sense specified above. Social media groups, video-conferencing platforms, collaborative documents, and asynchronous messaging applications each constitute distinctive interaction orders governed by their own participation frameworks, recognition practices, accountability structures, emotional regimes, and competence requirements. Activists increasingly acquire narrative competence through short-form video storytelling, coalition competence through online coordination, and representational competence through digital public engagement alongside in-person testimony. The present paper focuses primarily on face-to-face interaction orders because they remain the primary site of activist formation in the Santa Barbara housing justice movement during the period under study, but the theoretical framework developed here extends naturally to the hybrid organizational ecologies — spanning embodied and mediated interaction orders alike — that increasingly characterize contemporary movements, as Vignette G demonstrates below.

B. The Developmental Gap: Fillieule's Challenge

Oliver Fillieule has identified the central lacuna in the political socialization literature with unusual directness: we have studied why people participate in movements, but we know surprisingly little about how participation changes them (Fillieule 2013). Movements are not merely organizations that mobilize pre-existing activists. They are, in Fillieule's formulation, socializing agents — explicit and implicit sites of political formation. The activist career — a concept borrowed from Becker and Strauss in the symbolic interactionist tradition — is the developmental trajectory through which participants acquire the orientations, competencies, and identities that sustain long-term political engagement. Fillieule's more recent structural interactionist account develops this concept further, arguing that activist identities emerge through changing trajectories of successive interaction with organizations, networks, institutions, and historical events, rather than from fixed dispositions or stable personality traits (Fillieule 2023). That formulation is closer to the present paper's argument than Fillieule's earlier work: it treats the activist career not as the unfolding of a pre-existing commitment but as a developmental process accomplished through participation — precisely the claim this paper specifies at the level of the interaction order.

Fillieule's framework is invaluable but incomplete. He identifies organizations as the socializing unit and calls for ethnographic research on what happens inside them. He does not specify which settings produce which competencies or how those competencies accumulate across an activist career. This paper addresses that specification: political socialization is accomplished through participation in multiple constitutive interaction orders nested within the meeting arenas of a movement's organizational ecology. The mechanism is not the organization but the interaction order within it.

The social movement literature has generally presupposed competent participants throughout. As Snow, Soule, and Kriesi's Companion to Social Movements makes clear, its canonical map of movement components — organizations, networks, leaders, frames, collective identities, tactics, repertoires — describes the architecture of movement life without explaining how people become capable of inhabiting it (Snow, Soule, and Kriesi 2004). No chapter addresses how ordinary people acquire the interactional, discursive, organizational, and moral competencies that framing, leadership, testimony, coalition building, and democratic deliberation require. That is the gap this paper fills.

IV. Theoretical Framework: The Organizational Ecology of Constitutive Interaction Orders

The preceding review suggests that no existing perspective fully explains how ordinary citizens become politically competent actors through participation in movement organizations. Political process theory explains when movements emerge; resource mobilization explains what organizations need; framing theory explains the meanings movements produce; meeting-arena analysis explains why recurring assemblies matter. None explains the developmental mechanism — the interactional process through which people acquire the competencies that all of these other processes require. Rather than proposing another theory of mobilization or framing, this paper shifts the unit of analysis. Its focus is the recurring, constitutive interaction orders through which political competence is cultivated over time.

A. Specifying the Interaction Order

The interaction order, as the concept is used in this paper, is specified by six analytically distinguishable properties that allow it to be distinguished from adjacent concepts such as "setting," "scene," or "organizational activity." First, a participation framework determines who may speak, in what roles, and with what rights. Second, competence requirements specify what participants must know or demonstrate to be recognized as full members. Third, an accountability structure governs how actions and speech are evaluated and by whom. Fourth, recognition practices determine whose knowledge counts and on what grounds. Fifth, an emotional regime specifies appropriate feelings and their legitimate expression. Sixth, an organizational accomplishment names the distinctive political work the setting performs within the broader ecology.

This specification distinguishes the concept from Goffman's original, more general formulation; from Lichterman's scene style, which is primarily discursive; from Fine's tiny publics, which operate at the level of group culture; and from framing theory, which analyzes meaning production rather than the interactional conditions of its production. An interaction order, on this account, is not a setting where social action happens. It is a constitutive normative world that determines what kinds of persons, recognitions, and competencies can exist within it.

B. The Nested Analytical Model

The paper's theoretical architecture is best understood as a nested hierarchy of four levels that integrates Haug's organizational contribution with the present paper's interactional one. At the highest level, the movement organizational ecology comprises the full system of organizations, networks, coalitions, and informal relationships through which the housing justice movement coordinates its work. Within this ecology, meeting arenas (Haug) are the recurring assemblies where organizations coordinate, alliances form, information circulates, and identities are reinforced. Within each meeting arena, multiple constitutive interaction orders operate — the check-in, the storytelling circle, the political education session, the deliberation, the mentoring conversation, the ritual — each with distinct participation frameworks and recognition practices. At the most granular level, sequential interaction (Garfinkel, Sacks) is the turn-by-turn accomplishment of intelligible, accountable action. The product of this system, accumulated across an activist career, is political competence.

The key innovation is the move from the second to the third level. Haug shows that meeting arenas are essential organizational infrastructure. This paper opens the black box of the meeting arena and shows that what appears organizationally as "one meeting" is interactionally a succession of different orders, each performing different developmental work. A single LEG meeting may move through a welcoming check-in, a facilitated storytelling round, a structured deliberation on policy recommendations, an informal mentoring exchange, and a closing ritual — each constituting a distinct interaction order with different norms, different distributions of speaking rights, and different competencies being cultivated. This is not merely description of meeting phases. It is the identification of the interactional machinery through which political socialization occurs. The same nested logic applies when meeting arenas extend into digitally mediated settings, as movement organizational ecologies increasingly do: a single campaign may move through a face-to-face rehearsal, a recorded testimony, a social media post, a coordinating Zoom call, and a livestreamed hearing, each constituting a distinct interaction order nested within the same meeting arena. Vignette G develops this extension in detail; the theoretical point to register here is that hybrid interaction orders require no separate theoretical apparatus — they are governed by the same six analytic properties specified above, simply instantiated through mediated rather than co-present participation.

C. Eight Activist Competencies

One of the paper's original theoretical contributions is a differentiated account of what activists learn through participation in the organizational ecology. Rather than treating political socialization as the generic acquisition of political identity or commitment, the paper specifies nine analytically distinguishable competencies, each primarily cultivated within specific interaction orders. Narrative competence — the ability to tell one's story publicly and transform personal experience into political testimony — is primarily cultivated in peer support circles and lived experience groups. Diagnostic competence — the ability to identify structural rather than individual causes of housing precarity — is cultivated in political education meetings. Deliberative competence — the capacity for democratic discussion, listening, turn-taking, and building on others' contributions — is cultivated in governance bodies and coalition meetings. Representational competence — speaking on behalf of others with accountability to them — is developed through public testimony and formal institutional participation. Organizational competence encompasses understanding meetings, agendas, coalitions, institutions, and procedure — a competency this paper will later show to encompass several distinguishable subdimensions (administrative, fundraising, media, and coalition) once the full empirical range of the organizational ecology, including its mediated dimensions, comes into view. Coalition competence specifically denotes the capacity to build and sustain working relationships across organizational boundaries — among advocacy groups, faith communities, governance bodies, and allied movements — such that coordinated collective action becomes possible where none of the constituent organizations could act as effectively alone; this definition anchors every subsequent use of the term in this paper. Discursive competence involves using movement language appropriately and code-switching across institutional registers. Moral competence — recognizing obligations, solidarity, and public responsibility — is cultivated primarily through memorial rituals and street outreach. Strategic competence — choosing tactics, audiences, and opportunities — develops through coalition governance and informal mentoring.

A ninth competency has become increasingly indispensable as movement ecologies have grown hybrid: mediational competence, the capacity to translate movement claims across communication ecologies — face-to-face meetings, social media, journalism, podcasts, livestreams, legislative testimony, and public ritual — while preserving the movement's moral and political commitments. This competency barely existed as a distinct interactional accomplishment in the meeting-centered movement ecologies of the late twentieth century. It is indispensable today, and its emergence is documented in Vignette G below.

The value of this model is not taxonomic but analytical. It explains why the trajectory of participation across the organizational ecology matters: each interaction order is specialized, each produces partial competencies, and the accumulation of competencies across the activist career is what produces the capacity for the most demanding forms of political action. No single interaction order produces a full activist. What does is the movement across them.

D. Political Socialization as Interactional Accomplishment

Bert Klandermans' analysis of grievance formation provides empirical specification for one dimension of this process (Klandermans 1997). People do not typically arrive at movement participation with pre-formed grievances; grievances are socially constructed through participation in settings where structural explanations for personal troubles are made available, rehearsed, and refined. The transformation from private trouble to public issue — C. Wright Mills' foundational sociological distinction — is an interactional accomplishment, not a cognitive event. In the organizing meetings and lived experience groups of the Santa Barbara housing justice movement, this transformation is directly observable: participants arrive describing their experiences in individualized, often self-blaming terms, and leave articulating structural accounts of housing precarity that name institutional actors, identify systemic failures, and propose organized responses.

The mechanism of this transformation is not persuasion but participation — repeated engagement in interaction orders that organize recognition around structural analysis rather than individual deficit. Mathieu Berger's analysis of democratic participation illuminates the competence dimension of the same process (Berger 2024). Participation in public forums is not simply a matter of access; it requires the successful negotiation of interactional frames that are often implicit, contested, and asymmetrically accessible to different participants. The tacit knowledge of when to speak, how to speak, what counts as a relevant contribution, and how to represent others legitimately must be acquired through experience in specific interaction orders before it can be deployed in the institutional forums where housing policy is made.

V. Methods: Autoethnography and Long-Term Participant Observation

The theoretical framework just described was not constructed in the abstract. It emerged from three decades of embedded participation in the very organizational ecology it attempts to theorize. This paper draws on three decades of participant observation in the Santa Barbara housing justice movement. Since the mid-1990s, I have been embedded in the organizational ecology described in the empirical sections that follow, across multiple roles: as a case manager, shelter staff member, safe parking program worker, dual diagnosis program worker, homelessness prevention manager, and street outreach worker at various periods; as a governance participant in the South Coast Homeless Advisory Committee, the Central Coast Collaborative on Homelessness, Common Ground, the Continuum of Care, and the Santa Barbara County Behavioral Wellness Commission; as a community organizer with CLUE Santa Barbara and the Committee for Social Justice; as a board member with Showers of Blessing; and as a co-founder of the Santa Barbara Homeless Foot Washing (with Lynnelle Williams), the Longest Night Homeless Memorial Vigil, and the Freedom Warming Centers. Throughout this period, I have participated in the SB ACT Lived Experience Group and maintained active relationships with the organizations and people whose work this paper documents.

The methodological position is autoethnographic in the sense developed by Chari and Donner: the researcher's own participation is not background to the analysis but its primary data (Chari and Donner 2010). Three decades of embedded observation have made visible what conventional ethnographic research could not: the developmental trajectories of individual activists across multiple interaction orders over years; the organizational accomplishments of specific meetings and rituals; the gradual acquisition of competencies that precede any single observable performance; the informal conversations before and after meetings where much of the most consequential interactional work occurs.

The autoethnographic position carries both epistemic advantages and limits that must be named honestly. The advantages are substantial: access to interaction orders that are closed to outside researchers; the accumulated street literacy and institutional literacy that makes competent observation possible; the longitudinal view of activist careers that cross-sectional fieldwork cannot provide; and the moral standing that comes from having done the work alongside the people described. The limits are equally real: my access to Spanish-language and immigrant organizing networks within the broader housing justice field is partial, and this partiality is itself a theoretically significant observation about the boundary conditions of interaction-order membership. I do not claim comprehensive knowledge of the movement's ecology. I claim three decades of embedded participation in its core organizational settings, which is the empirical basis for the theoretical argument that follows.

The reconstructive character of this ethnography deserves explicit acknowledgment. This paper draws on memory, fieldnotes, meeting agendas, organizational documents, and personal correspondence accumulated over thirty years of participation. Where specific exchanges are reconstructed, I use the conventions that honest ethnographers use for such material: "on a typical Tuesday evening," "in an exchange I recall clearly," "she said something like." These conventions signal reconstruction without fabricating specificity. Nothing attributed to a specific person is invented; everything claimed is grounded in what I genuinely remember or can document.

The six embodied interaction orders examined in this paper, together with the hybrid interaction orders traced in Vignette G, were not selected arbitrarily, nor do they represent every setting in which housing justice activism in Santa Barbara occurs. They were selected because each is a recurring, bounded site in which I have participated repeatedly over an extended period, because each is analytically distinct in its participation framework and recognition practices, and because together they span the developmental arc the paper traces: from the baseline encounter of street outreach, through the developmental settings of peer support and political education, through the institutional settings of governance, to the ritual setting that renews the ecology's moral commitments. What counts as evidence in the vignettes that follow is observation repeated across many instances of a recurring interaction order, supplemented wherever possible by contemporaneous documents — meeting agendas, organizational statements, published essays, commission reports — that corroborate and sharpen what memory alone would leave underspecified. Where a vignette centers on a single named exchange, as with the SB ACT Lived Experience Group or the governance vignette's account of Nancy McCradie, that exchange is offered not as an isolated anecdote but as an instance of a pattern observed many times, selected because it renders that pattern visible with unusual clarity.

VI. The Organizational Ecology of the Santa Barbara Housing Justice Movement

The question that has organized this paper — how does an ordinary person become a politically competent actor? — is not answered in the abstract. It is answered by watching what happens inside specific organizations over time. The Santa Barbara housing justice movement is not one organization. It is an ecology of organizations, meeting arenas, and interaction orders through which diverse participants — formerly and currently unhoused people, faith community members, social service professionals, legal advocates, academic researchers, elected officials, and longtime activists — coordinate their work, build their capacities, and sustain collective engagement over time. What follows examines six embodied interaction orders within this ecology, followed by a seventh that traces the hybrid, digitally mediated settings into which the preceding six increasingly extend, tracing the developmental arc through which people who have been denied recognition in dominant institutional settings learn, through sustained participation, to carry that recognition into the very institutions that denied it.

Each vignette is organized around the four questions that the theoretical framework specifies: Where are we, and what interaction order is operating here? What competencies are expected and being cultivated? What changes in this setting — what transformation occurs? What organizational work has been accomplished? Together, the vignettes trace the developmental trajectory through which formerly unhoused people become politically competent actors — showing, rather than merely asserting, that social movements are pedagogical institutions.

Vignette A: The Stone Wall

Late morning in Santa Barbara. Across from the MTD station, the stone wall outside Ralphs holds its usual cast: a man asleep on the sidewalk with his backpack for a pillow, a bookseller arranging secondhand paperbacks along the top ledge, two taxis idling at the curb. Buses sigh on the far side of the street; gulls angle toward the harbor air; a marine haze keeps the light kind.

After fifteen years doing this work, you notice things in a different order than other people do. I see the paper bag half-tucked under the sweatshirt hem before I see the face. I see the old scabs on the forearms before I see the hoodie pulled up despite the warmth. I catch the thread of murmur and the small rhythmic flick at the shoulder — brushing at something invisible — before I register the stone wall, the newspaper rack, the particular patch of shade he has chosen. Years of outreach do not simply train you to look; they change what you look at first, and what you see when you look.

The foot traffic moves past in the practiced choreography that keeps public life stitched together: faces set in polite, rule-bound nonengagement, eyes skimming without landing. This is Goffman's civil inattention — the tacit ritual through which strangers acknowledge each other's presence without imposing on it. For most people moving through this block, the man on the wall is neither acknowledged nor engaged. He is looked past. The outreach worker's job begins precisely in that gap, at the place where civil inattention ends and something else — something that has to be learned — begins.

I stand at the corner for a moment before approaching. Not hesitation exactly — more a reading. His shoulders are tight inside the hoodie but not braced; he is aware of the street without scanning it anxiously. The murmur is continuous, low, addressed to something I can't see. The wound on his forearm is not fresh. His paper bag is positioned the way someone positions something they do not want disturbed. I note all of this without moving toward him, because the approach itself is a communication, and I want it to say the right things: I see you, I am not a threat, I am not here to move you along.

I square my stance, visible hands, soft voice, and step into the thin space where an encounter can begin.

“Hey. I’m Wayne — with street outreach. I work this block.”

“Do you have a name you’d like me to use?”

He squints up through the hood’s shadow. “Why?”

“So I can greet you right next time. And so I don’t just call you ‘sir’ like some clipboard.”

He considers this longer than most. “Anthony,” he says at last. “With an ‘h.’ Don’t call me Tony.”

The name exchange is more consequential than it appears. Names on the street are not simple identifiers; they are decisions about who gets to know what, and on whose terms. Anthony’s insistence on the “h” and his refusal of “Tony” are assertions of personhood in a social world that has repeatedly processed him under other people’s categories. The outreach worker accepts both. He will write “Anthony” in his field notes. He will use it tomorrow.

“What’s the one thing you need today? Just one.”

“People to leave me alone,” he says — a flash of defiance, then softer. “Water. Maybe water.”

“I’ve got that.” I pull a bottle from the bag and set it between us, not pressing it into his hand. “Take it if you want.”

The placement matters. The water is set between them, not transferred to Anthony’s hand. This small choreographic choice enacts harm reduction at the level of gesture: the offer is unconditional, the acceptance is voluntary, the relationship does not depend on compliance. In fifteen years of this work, the outreach worker has learned that how you offer something matters as much as what you offer.

Anthony talks about the security sweeps. He talks about the paper bag — not volunteering its contents but not hiding them either. The murmur resurfaces now and then, addressed to interlocutors the outreach worker cannot see. When the worker responds, he does not moralize. He does not reach for urgency.

“Makes sense that you’d look for something that helps you sleep outside. It’s loud, and it doesn’t feel safe.”

He is practicing what harm reduction workers sometimes call holding the function rather than condemning the behavior — acknowledging that the coping strategy is rational in the current circumstances, while keeping a door open that moralism would close. A tractor-trailer brakes on Carrillo. Anthony’s shoulders tighten. The sound has done something to him.

“They’ll 5150 you for a sneeze. I’m not going back.”

“I’m not here to force anything. And I won’t call anyone behind your back. If I ever worry you’re in danger right now, I’d tell you first.”

The promise is specific and limited. Not “I’m on your side” or “I’m not like the others” — abstractions that anyone can say and that institutional memory makes meaningless. The promise is behavioral and bounded: if I worry, I tell you first. Anthony receives it without visibly softening. He is not, in this moment, convinced. He is considering.

The encounter moves through small exchanges: an offer of bandages for the arm, a mention of the street medicine van on Thursdays, the question of whether the worker can come back tomorrow at noon. Each exchange is unhurried, calibrated to the particular weather of Anthony’s mood and the ambient conditions of the block. The bookseller recommends a Vonnegut to a sunburned tourist. A security guard watches and then looks away.

“You gonna be back?”

“If it helps, I can be right here tomorrow at noon. Same spot. If you’re here, we talk. If not, no pressure. I’ll circle back.”

He nods without looking at me. “Spell it right,” he says after a beat. “A-n-t-h-o-n-y.”

“I will.” I repeat it back; he corrects my emphasis, and I thank him.

At the corner, the outreach worker jots field notes: name and spelling, preferred spot on the wall, wound on forearm, acceptance of socks and water, two maybes, the Thursday anchor. Not a diagnosis. Not a moral summary. Just enough to carry continuity and care forward without stealing anything private. The notes will travel through a system. Anthony will not. That asymmetry is part of what the work has to live with.

On the walk back, a memory elbows in: a young man at the river bottom years ago, twenty-eight and dying without saying so, refusing a ride to the clinic, found gone the next morning. The image of what had happened to him overnight never leaves. The outreach worker breathes against the urge to restage this morning as a rescue he could have forced. Presence over persuasion. Offer over order. Return.

He comes back tomorrow.

The Interaction Order of Street Outreach and Its Organizational Accomplishment

The encounter with Anthony illustrates the interaction order of street outreach at its most fundamental level. This order has specific and analyzable properties. Its participation framework is radically open: anyone on the street may be approached, though the approach must be invited rather than imposed. Its competence requirements are precisely those on display in the encounter above: street literacy, trauma-informed pacing, harm reduction reasoning, the capacity to read ambient social conditions and calibrate accordingly. Its accountability structure is unusual among service settings: the worker is accountable to the person being encountered, not to a supervisor, a protocol, or a funding stream. Its recognition practices invert the hierarchy of most professional settings: credentials matter less than relational trustworthiness, and the person being encountered retains authority over how they are named, categorized, and recorded.

Charles Goodwin argued that professions develop socially organized ways of seeing that transform ambiguous perceptual fields into institutionally meaningful objects of knowledge. What the experienced outreach worker sees at the stone wall — the paper bag position, the shoulder flinch, the wound that is not fresh, the two maybes that are, in the grammar of this work, a significant accomplishment — is the product of professional vision trained over years of similar encounters. But outreach professional vision works against the grain of other professional visions that converge on the same person: police vision, which sees a potential problem; city management vision, which sees blight; clinical vision, which sees a patient who refuses treatment. The outreach worker’s trained perception insists on something that none of these other visions produce: Anthony as a person, with a preferred name and spelling, whose coping strategies are rational given his circumstances, and who deserves to be approached with care rather than managed with authority.

The primary competency cultivated through participation in this interaction order is what this paper calls relational competence: the capacity to enter another person’s world with enough care and skill that trust becomes possible. Relational competence encompasses attentional competence — seeing what others do not see — but exceeds it. It includes the trauma-informed pacing that lets silences breathe; the harm reduction reasoning that holds the function rather than condemning the behavior; the street literacy that reads ambient conditions before entering them; and the disciplined restraint that places water on a wall rather than pressing it into a hand. These are not personality traits. They are learned interactional capacities, acquired through apprenticeship in a specific interaction order, and they are the foundation on which everything that follows in the organizational ecology depends.

Every other interaction order in the housing justice ecology presupposes a participant who has crossed an initial threshold of institutional trust. The peer support circle, the political education meeting, the coalition governance body, and the public hearing each require a person willing to be present in an organized setting, willing to be seen by others who share the space, willing to engage with a structured process. Street outreach is the only interaction order in the ecology that works before that threshold has been crossed. It operates in the space between invisibility and engagement, and its organizational accomplishment is not policy, recovery, or activism. It is the creation of the fragile relational foundation upon which every subsequent interaction order depends.

Relational competence does not, however, prepare activists to name the structural causes of the suffering they have experienced, to deliberate about policy remedies, or to speak before institutional audiences on behalf of those they have witnessed. Those capacities require a different kind of setting — one in which lived experience is not merely witnessed but collectively analyzed, in which private suffering is transformed into structural indictment, in which the person who has been processed through the housing system learns to speak about that processing in terms that institutional actors recognize as political knowledge. That work begins in the Lived Experience Group.

Narrative and diagnostic competence do not, however, prepare activists to navigate the governance settings where housing policy is actually made. Moving from the Lived Experience Group to the Continuum of Care is not simply an escalation of competence — it is a change of normative worlds. The LEG inverts the recognition hierarchy. The governance world restores it. The activist who moves between them must learn something that no single interaction order teaches: how to carry experiential authority into rooms that do not automatically recognize it.

Vignette B: The SB ACT Lived Experience Group — Inverted Recognition

The FARO Center's conference room holds roughly twelve people around a large table. On a morning in the quarter devoted to public comment preparation, ten members of the SB ACT Lived Experience Group have gathered. The room sits at the day center where most of them also work or receive services — a building that is already, for many of them, one of the few stable places in their lives.

Landon, the group's facilitator and the only member without direct lived experience of homelessness, opens with an icebreaker. Going around the circle: What's your favorite thing to cool off with on a hot summer day? Coconut water. Ice cream. A cold shower. The answers come quickly, with laughter. The icebreaker is not filler. It is the opening ritual of an interaction order that runs on equality of voice — everyone speaks, everyone is heard, before the work begins.

Around the table sits an extraordinary range of people whom the outside world would struggle to recognize as formerly unhoused. The group's lead — a Puerto Rican woman from the New York City area, a former executive assistant — sends the agendas, keeps the minutes, and follows up with the precision of someone who has run offices. There is a female engineer who experienced trafficking and lived in her car for three years; she is now a trained peer supporter, available to anyone in the group who gets triggered by the day's content. There is a man who spent years writing software in the tech industry. Each carries a story the outside world would find improbable. Each is in this room because they survived something and kept going.

On this particular morning, Wayne has brought printed copies of his Noozhawk essay on the Hero's Journey. The group reads it aloud, going around the circle, one paragraph each. Not because it is an efficient way to consume information — because reading aloud together is an act of collective ownership. The words belong to everyone who speaks them.

The essay works through Joseph Campbell's monomyth — the Ordinary World, the Call to Adventure, Refusal of the Call, Meeting the Mentor, Crossing the Threshold, the Supreme Ordeal, the Reward, the Return. As the reading moves around the table, people begin to hear their own lives in the structure. The Call to Adventure that went wrong. The Refusal that cost years. The Ordeal that almost didn't end.

Wayne models what he is about to ask by mapping his own life onto Campbell's eight stages — using a summary of his memoir, I Just Wanted to Dance with Dionysus. He does not soften the hard parts. He names the years of being a lost soul. He identifies his Supreme Ordeal with the same directness he is about to ask of them. The modeling is the instruction: This is the level of honesty I am asking. Not the version you tell people when you want to seem okay. The real one.

The group then works in pairs. Each person maps their own life onto the eight stages — with their homelessness named explicitly, without softening, as the Supreme Ordeal. Wayne moves through the pairs, asking: What exactly happened? What did it feel like? What did you lose? The stories that emerge are not simple. Homelessness almost never has a single cause. There is illness and job loss and domestic violence and addiction and systems that failed and moments of terrible luck.

The longer narratives are then compressed — this is the technical work of the session. A life reduced to two minutes. Two hundred and fifty words. The discipline of compression forces a clarity that is itself a form of political learning: to speak at City Council, you cannot tell everything. You must decide what is essential. The personal story has to do two things at once: move the listener and make the argument.

On the day of the City Council meeting, ten people walk in together. They speak in the sequence they have prepared. Each names themselves, states their connection to homelessness, delivers the compressed Hero's Journey testimony they have shaped over weeks. When ten people show up in coordinated testimony — ten people with lived experience, ten people who have prepared, ten people who do not seem like the stereotype — the council notices.

The group does not stay for the results. Council meetings in Santa Barbara run until midnight, and these are people with early shifts and the human need to sleep. They file out together into the Santa Barbara night. But something has happened that cannot be undone. Ten people who had experienced homelessness stood in a formal institutional setting and delivered structured, honest, politically grounded public testimony.

The Interaction Order of the Lived Experience Group

The SB ACT Lived Experience Group is the organizational ecology's most deliberately pedagogical interaction order. Its participation framework explicitly privileges experiential knowledge: professional advocates may attend but are expected to listen rather than direct — to move, in the language Cristina Asenjo Palma and Fiona Verity develop from their study of tenant organizing in Scotland, “from the centre to the side,” allowing the people most affected by housing precarity to lead the analysis of their own circumstances (Asenjo Palma and Verity 2026). Its recognition practices invert the hierarchy of the professional network: the person who has slept on the street is recognized as the expert. Its emotional regime supports disclosures that would be inappropriate in other settings — grief, anger, shame, and solidarity circulate freely.

The primary competency cultivated within this interaction order is what this paper calls narrative competence: the capacity to tell one's story publicly, to transform personal experience into political testimony, to compress years of suffering into the two minutes that public life allows. Narrative competence is the first and most fundamental activist competency, because without it experiential authority remains private knowledge — vivid but unspeakable in the settings where it needs to be heard.

The Hero's Journey quarter illustrates how this competency is cultivated pedagogically. The framework does something specific: it does not explain homelessness away but places it within a larger arc — you were not simply a victim, you were a person who faced an ordeal, and you are still here. That reframing is not therapeutic in the clinical sense. It is political. It converts the grammar of personal failure into the grammar of structural challenge and personal survival.

The group also cultivates what this paper calls diagnostic competence — the capacity to name structural rather than individual causes of housing precarity. Over months of participation, members arrive describing their experiences in self-blaming terms and leave articulating structural accounts: housing markets, inadequate mental health infrastructure, the criminalization of poverty, the systematic failures of institutions that processed them. The transformation from private trouble to public issue — C. Wright Mills's foundational sociological distinction — is accomplished interactionally, through repeated participation in a setting that organizes recognition around structural analysis.

Vignette C: CLUE Housing Justice Workgroup — Theological Framing

CLUE — Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice — is a faith-rooted organization with a long history of standing alongside workers and communities in struggle. Its Santa Barbara chapter, with its Housing Justice Workgroup, represents a distinct interaction order within the housing justice movement’s organizational ecology: one organized around the moral and theological framing of housing as a human right, and around the particular forms of coalition competence that emerge when faith communities enter political campaigns.

The interaction order of the Housing Justice Workgroup is immediately distinguishable from the LEG and the Homeless Activist Luncheon by its characteristic vocabulary and its participants. Clergy, laity, academics, and community advocates sit together in a setting organized not around experiential authority — the currency of the LEG — but around moral authority: the authority of faith tradition, of theological claim, of the long prophetic history of religious communities standing against injustice. The opening of a CLUE meeting is often itself a ritual act: a prayer, a reading from scripture, a statement of shared values. The interaction order announces its normative ground before any policy discussion begins.

In September 2022, Richard Appelbaum and Wayne Mellinger co-authored a statement that captures the CLUE Housing Justice Workgroup’s characteristic mode of operation. The document begins by naming the problem in moral terms: the local housing system is “overly focused on the interests of the most wealthy in our community, as well as corporations” and must be re-focused on “the needs and well-being of ordinary working families and communities.” It asserts, without qualification, that “housing is a human right” — a framing that immediately places the workgroup’s analysis within a rights-based moral framework rather than a policy or technical one. This is diagnostic framing in Snow and Benford’s sense, but it is diagnostic framing with a specific moral register: the language of rights, of dignity, of civic responsibility, of what a faith community owes its neighbors.

The document then moves through three distinct “housing crises,” each affecting a different population: the 150,000 unhoused Californians (citing a UN official’s characterization of encampments as “cruel and inhuman”), the seven million living in poverty who pay more than half their income on housing, and the younger middle-class generation priced out of homeownership. This three-part diagnostic structure is itself a form of coalition building: it frames the housing crisis as affecting not only the most marginalized but a broad cross-section of the community, creating the conditions for alliances across class and political lines that a purely poverty-focused analysis could not achieve.

The competencies cultivated within the CLUE Housing Justice Workgroup interaction order are distinct from those produced elsewhere in the ecology. The primary competency is what this paper calls discursive competence at the theological register: the ability to frame structural analysis in the moral vocabulary of faith tradition, to connect policy arguments to prophetic obligation, to speak to religious audiences in their own language about housing justice. A person who has learned to speak at CLUE meetings can walk into a congregation and make the case for rent stabilization in terms that resonate with the community’s deepest values rather than its policy preferences. That is a different and harder thing than making the same argument before a city council.

Coalition competence is the second major product of this interaction order. The CLUE Housing Justice Workgroup’s characteristic mode of operation is partnership: with CAUSE, the League of Women Voters, the Santa Barbara Housing Justice Coalition, UCSB researchers, labor unions, Democratic Party representatives, and the faith communities of Santa Barbara County. The 2022 statement names these partnerships explicitly and describes the work of coalition governance: the Zoom meetings, the strategic discussions, the coordination of campaign timelines, the division of organizational labor. This is exactly the cross-sector translation work that Haug identifies as the primary function of meeting arenas: producing coordination across organizational boundaries that could not otherwise occur.

The document also reveals something about how technical competence — what this paper calls organizational competence — is cultivated within faith-rooted advocacy settings. The workgroup is not content with moral exhortation. It commissions research: CLUE board members work with UCSB’s Spatial Pattern Analysis and Research Lab to analyze LLC ownership of rental properties, mapping gentrification and displacement. It drafts model ordinances. It plans ballot measures. It collaborates with academic economists on rent stabilization data. The interaction order of the Housing Justice Workgroup produces people who can move between the prophetic register of a congregational address and the technical register of a Housing Crisis Task Force meeting — people who have acquired, through repeated participation, both the moral vocabulary and the organizational literacy that sustained advocacy campaigns require.

The two-year campaign the workgroup describes in its 2022 statement — rent stabilization, anti-displacement protections, tenant rights, and ultimately a “Marshall Plan” for affordable housing — illustrates the organizational accomplishment of this interaction order at the movement-ecology level. Campaigns require sustained coordination across organizations, across political and professional boundaries, across the gap between moral vision and legislative detail. The CLUE Housing Justice Workgroup produces participants capable of that coordination because its interaction order repeatedly models it: every meeting integrates prophetic framing with strategic planning, moral commitment with organizational analysis, faith community mobilization with technical advocacy.

There is a specific developmental moment visible in the 2022 statement that deserves attention. Jennifer Ferraez, whose reflections also appear in the Homeless Activist Luncheon vignette, articulated the transition that CLUE participation produces: “I never planned on being an advocate, but at a certain point I realized there were certain underserved populations who had little voice in our society and I had to speak out. Knowledge is responsibility.” That formulation — knowledge is responsibility — names the moral epistemology of the CLUE interaction order. In this setting, learning about housing precarity is not an academic exercise. It is the acquisition of an obligation. The interaction order constitutes knowledge as morally binding, and participants leave having been not merely informed but called.

Theological Framing and Coalition Competence

The CLUE Housing Justice Workgroup occupies a distinctive position in the organizational ecology of the Santa Barbara housing justice movement. It is not the setting where formerly unhoused people primarily develop their voices — that is the LEG and the political education meetings. It is the setting where housed advocates, faith leaders, and academic allies develop their capacity to sustain long-term campaigns, to cross organizational boundaries, and to speak in registers that reach communities the movement could not otherwise reach. It is, in the paper’s terminology, a coalition interaction order: one whose primary organizational accomplishment is the production of people and relationships capable of sustaining coordinated action across the institutional diversity of a housing justice movement. Coalition competence, however, is not the same as institutional competence. Knowing how to build alliances across organizations is different from knowing how to navigate the formal governance bodies in which housing policy is actually decided — the procedural literacy, the budgetary fluency, the capacity to read a performance dashboard. That competency, and the institutional access it makes possible, is cultivated in a different interaction order entirely.

Vignette D: SCHAC and C3H — Entering Institutional Governance

The meeting room looks the way governance rooms always look. A rectangle of tables pushed together into a larger rectangle, chairs arranged around the outside, a projector screen at one end, an agenda printed and distributed, a roll call sheet moving around the perimeter. Someone is presenting a slide deck. The slide shows bed utilization rates, average length of stay, housing placement outcomes. A subcommittee chair summarizes last month's action items. Another reports on a federal compliance requirement. The language is fluent and specific: coordinated entry, HMIS data integrity, HUD McKinney-Vento, VI-SPDAT thresholds, rapid rehousing targets.

This is the interaction order of governance — formal, procedural, data-oriented, organized by Robert's Rules and shaped by the political economy of the funding streams that bring these particular people into this particular room. It is one of the most demanding interaction orders in the housing justice ecology, and one of the least forgiving to newcomers. You cannot participate effectively here without knowing what coordinated entry means, how the Continuum of Care funding competition works, which subcommittee handles which decisions, and how to read a performance dashboard. The competencies required are organizational and institutional: bureaucratic navigation, procedural literacy, cross-sector translation, the ability to speak in the register of administration without losing the thread of the people the administration is supposed to serve.

The governance ecology of Santa Barbara's homelessness response has its own political economy, and it is visible in who sits where and speaks how much. The organizations with the largest funding streams occupy the most agenda space. When Casa Esperanza held the county's largest shelter contracts, its executive director Mike Foley played a central role in coordinating the system's direction. When Good Samaritan grew from roughly 100 workers to nearly 400 in five years, its leadership moved to the center of the governance conversation. When New Beginnings' Safe Parking Program and veterans' services were the system's most prominent innovations, their leaders were prominent. Organizational power within the Continuum of Care tracks funding, not proximity to suffering, and not length of engagement with the problem.

This is not a failure of the governance system. It is its structure. The Continuum of Care is a federally mandated body whose primary function is to coordinate the planning and funding of homeless services across the county — to ensure that HUD money flows to programs that meet federal performance standards, that data is reported accurately, that the system is accountable to its funders. Those are legitimate institutional functions. But they organize the room around a particular kind of competence and a particular kind of authority, and that organization has consequences for who gets recognized as knowing something worth hearing.

The governance ecology did not always look like this. The arc of its development runs from informal advocacy networks to full bureaucratic administration across roughly four decades, and understanding that arc is essential to understanding what the governance interaction order currently is and what it replaced.

In the 1980s, the Santa Barbara response to homelessness was organized primarily through direct service and advocacy. The Homeless People's Association, co-founded by Nancy McCradie, ran cooperative shelter operations in which unhoused people managed their own spaces, divided tasks among themselves, and governed their own affairs. The governing principle was self-management: the HPA offered classes at the shelter, maintained a speakers' bureau that brought unhoused people into schools and community settings, and operated on the assumption that people experiencing homelessness were capable of organizing their own response to their situation. The de facto leaders of the system in this period were the directors of the city's two main shelters — not because of formal authority but because they had the closest relationships with the population and the deepest institutional knowledge of what the street actually looked like. This informal system also had genuine limitations that the governance era would later address: little coordination across organizations, no shared data, no consistent standard of care, and outcomes that depended heavily on which shelter director or outreach worker a person happened to encounter.

Through the 1990s and into the 2000s, relationships forged in informal settings — the Homeless Activist Luncheon, Common Ground, the South Coast Homeless Advisory Committee, the Central Coast Collaborative on Homelessness — became the network through which a more coordinated response began to take shape. Chuck Flacks, who for years led the Community Action Commission's homelessness work, built coalitions that pressed for coordinated regional responses and sustained political attention to homelessness as a structural issue. These advocacy networks were not yet governance bodies. They were the institutional precursors of the governance infrastructure that would organize the system in the following decades.

The formal turn came in 2004, with the adoption of Bring Our Community Home, Santa Barbara County's ten-year plan to end homelessness. Like similar plans adopted across the United States under federal pressure, the plan promised dramatic reductions through expanded supportive housing, improved service coordination, and shared information systems. Its most lasting legacy was not the achievement of its stated goals — which were not met — but the creation of an institutional framework: the Continuum of Care governance structure, the Homeless Management Information System, the coordinated funding competition, and the performance measurement apparatus that would shape the system for the following two decades.

By 2011, Housing First had become the system's official ideology, and the 100,000 Homes campaign brought its principles to street level through the vulnerability index survey — a structured instrument that produced a prioritization score determining housing queue position. The shift was genuine and significant: where the prior framework asked who had demonstrated readiness, the new framework asked who was most likely to die. But Housing First as administrative system instantiated the same documentary logic operating throughout the institutional apparatus: the vulnerability score is produced through an assessment encounter that presupposes precisely the capacities — narrative coherence, willingness to self-disclose, accurate recall of medical history — that homelessness systematically impairs.

By the late 2010s, under the leadership of Kimberlee Albers as the county's informal homelessness director, the budget for homelessness programs expanded from roughly three million dollars to nearly thirty million — reflecting new state and federal funding streams and the growing institutional complexity of the system. When Albers departed in 2024 for a more senior position with Ventura County, the institutional fragility her departure revealed was itself a measure of how thoroughly the system had become organized around specialized administrative expertise rather than relational knowledge or movement experience.

It was in a meeting convened as an offshoot of the Homeless Activist Luncheon, under the guidance of Rev. Jon Lemmond, that Nancy McCradie made the intervention I want to describe. The meeting was trying to organize itself — who would lead, how decisions would be made, what role unhoused people would play in the group's work. It was, in other words, a meeting about what kind of interaction order the group would constitute.

Nancy McCradie does not look the way the governance world expects its participants to look. She appears, as people sometimes say, like a former hippie — which she is, among other things. She has been engaged with homelessness in Santa Barbara for forty-seven years. Her late husband, known to the community as Protest Bob, was the informal mayor among the chronically unhoused — a man who knew the street's politics and social organization the way elected officials know committee assignments. Her two children, Sean and Krystal, were raised in an RV. She personally knew most of the chronically unhoused people in the city, by name, by history, by the particular texture of their circumstances. She carries a form of authority that no credential can confer and no governance structure can produce: she was there before any of this existed, and she remembers what it looked like.

When the discussion turned to leadership and structure, Nancy spoke from that memory.

“Back when the Homeless People’s Association was in operation, we ran our own shelters. We would divvy up all the tasks and work together cooperatively.” She paused, looking around the table. “You all gotta stop treating the unhoused like little children. Give us some responsibility and see what we can do.”

The room responded in the way rooms respond when something true and uncomfortable has been said. Someone called out, warmly: "You go, girl." Someone else said: "That's a great idea." And then, from somewhere around the table, another voice: "Then the lunatics would be running the asylum."

The remark was not made as an attack. It was made, apparently, as a joke — the kind of thing said when a room needs to relieve the pressure that a difficult truth has created. But it named, in one unguarded sentence, the assumption embedded in the governance interaction order that Nancy had just challenged: that unhoused people are not competent to govern their own affairs, that professional management is not a choice but a necessity, that the alternative to the current structure is chaos. The group moved on. The need for professional expertise was affirmed. The agenda continued.

Nancy also spoke that day about criminalization — not as an individual grievance but as a structural pattern.

“Homeless people are often ticketed for minor offenses that housed people get away with. It’s not that homeless people do more crime. The cops harass us unfairly. Criminalization never solved anything and it costs the taxpayers a lot of money. We need to stand together to get this to stop.”

The two interventions together constitute a complete political analysis: a structural critique of the paternalism embedded in service delivery, and a structural critique of the criminalization embedded in law enforcement. Both are grounded in forty-seven years of direct experience. Both draw on memory that nobody else in the room possesses. And both were received, then absorbed back into the agenda, the way governance rooms absorb things that do not fit neatly into the current action item.

The Interaction Order of Governance and Its Theoretical Significance

The governance interaction order — the Continuum of Care, SCHAC, C3H, the Behavioral Wellness Commission, the HEART Action Team — is not the same interaction order as the movement. It is the institutionalization of a response to homelessness, which is a different thing from challenging the structural conditions that produce it. This distinction matters for the paper's argument, because governance participation cultivates specific competencies that are genuinely necessary for housing justice work while simultaneously posing risks that the other interaction orders in the ecology do not.

The competencies governance participation produces are real and important. Organizational competence — understanding how federal funding streams work, how subcommittees function, how performance data is read and reported — cannot be acquired in a peer support circle or a political education meeting. Institutional literacy — knowing which body makes which decisions, how to navigate coordinated entry, how to translate between the language of advocacy and the language of administration — is essential for anyone who wants to influence housing policy rather than merely comment on it. Representational competence — speaking on behalf of a population to a body that has authority over that population's access to resources — requires exactly the kind of procedural fluency that governance settings develop through repeated participation.

The emergence of formal governance structures also transformed the local homelessness response in significant and often beneficial ways. Inter-agency coordination replaced the fragmented and largely independent efforts of earlier decades, enabling organizations to share information, align priorities, and coordinate service delivery across institutional boundaries. The adoption of common data systems, performance measures, and outcome evaluation introduced a level of accountability that had previously been impossible. Standardized evidence-informed practices — including Housing First, harm reduction, coordinated entry, warm handoffs between providers, and multidisciplinary case conferencing — became part of a shared professional repertoire, reducing duplication of services and increasing continuity of care. These developments represented genuine institutional achievements that improved the system's capacity to house and support vulnerable people.

Yet these achievements came with a corresponding transformation of the interaction order itself. As governance became increasingly organized around funding requirements, performance metrics, documentary accountability, and administrative expertise, new forms of competence became necessary for participation. Organizational competence and institutional literacy became indispensable political resources. At the same time, the very structures that enhanced coordination also carried the possibility of institutional absorption, as the language of administration, compliance, and measurable outcomes could gradually displace the movement's earlier emphasis on structural critique, lived experience, and democratic self-organization. The governance interaction order thus presents not a simple story of bureaucratic domination or institutional progress, but a productive tension between increased organizational capacity and the risk of narrowing the political imagination.

This productive tension can be specified more precisely. Governance participation accomplishes three things simultaneously, and the paper's argument is weakened if any one of them is allowed to eclipse the others. First, it develops institutional competence of a kind no other interaction order in the ecology can produce: the procedural fluency, budgetary literacy, and administrative judgment required to participate in the systems that actually allocate housing resources. Second, it creates genuine opportunities for political influence: a seat on the Continuum of Care or the Behavioral Wellness Commission is a seat at the table where funding priorities, program design, and policy direction are actually decided, and an activist with experiential authority who has also acquired institutional competence can shape those decisions in ways that testimony alone cannot. Third, and only third, it carries a real risk of institutional absorption: the Continuum of Care's job is to coordinate the response to homelessness as it currently exists, while the Committee for Social Justice's job is to challenge the conditions that produce it, and an activist who spends years in governance settings without maintaining connection to the movement's more explicitly political interaction orders may find that the language of administration has gradually displaced the language of structural critique — that she has become fluent in performance dashboards and funding compliance while losing the diagnostic vocabulary that makes those dashboards politically legible. These three dynamics — competence, influence, and risk — are not sequential stages but simultaneous features of the same interaction order, and the activists who navigate governance most effectively are those who hold all three in view at once rather than allowing institutional competence to crowd out political memory.

Nancy McCradie's presence in governance settings is a form of resistance to this absorption. She participates — she shows up, she speaks, she stays — but she carries memory that governance has not processed, and she uses that memory as moral pressure in rooms that have largely forgotten what preceded them. The Homeless People's Association's cooperative shelters. The time before vulnerability scores and coordinated entry. The period when unhoused people ran their own affairs and were not treated as children. That memory does not fit on a performance dashboard. It cannot be entered into HMIS. But it organizes the interaction order differently when it enters the room, because it names a possibility that the current system has foreclosed and presents that foreclosure as a choice rather than a necessity.

The governance interaction order cultivates organizational competence and institutional literacy — the capacities to navigate, negotiate, and influence the administrative systems that determine who gets housed, on what timeline, under what conditions. It does not, by itself, renew the moral commitment that sustains the willingness to keep doing that work across years of incremental, often frustrating progress. That renewal happens somewhere else in the ecology. It happens, most deliberately, at Longest Night.

From Advocacy Networks to Administrative Apparatus

Vignette E: The Governance Ecology

Vignette F: Longest Night

The Ritual Center of the Organizational Ecology

December 21st is the winter solstice — the longest night of the year, the moment when darkness reaches its maximum extent before the slow return of light. Under the archway of the Santa Barbara County Courthouse, since 2013, it has also been the occasion for a different kind of reckoning. People gather in the cold with plastic candles — tokens of remembrance — to speak the names of those who died on the city’s streets in the preceding year. The vigil is called Longest Night: A National Memorial Day for Those Who Have Died on the Streets.

The courthouse archway is one of Santa Barbara’s most formal civic spaces. The neoclassical architecture, the illuminated clock tower, the palm trees lit against the December sky — this is the symbolic center of the city’s civic life, and the vigil occupies it deliberately. The choice is not accidental. It places the dead and the living who mourn them at the intersection of what the city calls itself and what it has actually done.

About eighty people gather on a typical year, though the numbers vary. Some years the air is mild; in December 2023, a light rain fell throughout. The crowd is unlike any other in the organizational ecology of the Santa Barbara housing justice movement. Santa Barbara Police Chief Kelly Gordon has stood under that archway. Father Larry from the Old Mission. A cantor. Clergy from Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and Buddhist traditions — a deliberate interfaith gathering that signals, before anyone speaks, that grief and moral responsibility do not belong to one faith or one politics. Outreach workers who have spent the year trying to keep people alive. Formerly and currently unhoused people who have come to hear the names of neighbors they knew. An elderly woman clutching a photograph of her son.

The vigil was founded in 2013 by Wayne Mellinger, Rev. Julia Hamilton, and Rev. John Lemmond, who met at Crush Cakes to work out the first program of service. Father Jon-Stephen Hedges became a central figure from the beginning, and his contribution was theatrical in the deepest sense: every year, he played the part of Joseph. He would step forward to the large wooden courthouse doors and knock — pound, really — seeking room at the inn, invoking the story of Mary and Joseph homeless in Bethlehem, turned away, offered only a manger, their child born without shelter. He did this each year until he died. The courthouse doors are the doors of the institution that has repeatedly failed to house people. The story he was telling is two thousand years old. The answer Joseph received is the same answer the city has given its unhoused neighbors: there is no room. A homeless shelter in Isla Vista now bears Father Hedges’s name. Michelle Williams has sung at every vigil since the beginning. The 13th annual vigil, in December 2025, was organized by the Lived Experience Working Group of SB ACT, led by Landon Ranck and Letty Trujillo — a sign of how fully the vigil had been adopted by the movement’s own leadership.

The names are gathered each year through a process that is itself a form of collective witness. County Public Health’s Homeless Death Review Team provides what official data it can, but the team has sometimes gone dormant for years — it was restarting, as of the 13th vigil, after a three- or four-year gap. The gaps matter. In 2023, two women who had lived on the streets read sixty-five names and noted that the real number was probably higher — by their reckoning, roughly two homeless people die each week in Santa Barbara County. At the 13th vigil in 2025, more than seventy names were read aloud.

The reading of the names is the interaction order’s most consequential moment. Each name is read into the December darkness — clearly, with a pause after. The pause is not filled. It is held. Seventy names, seventy pauses, seventy moments in which the assembled community is asked to carry a specific person’s absence. The silence is not empty; it is the interaction order doing its most specific and irreplaceable work: organizing collective attention around individual lives that the city has preferred not to count.

At the 13th vigil, Wayne Mellinger stepped forward to read his poem “I Saw the Best Souls of My City” — the title a deliberate echo of Allen Ginsberg’s Howl, which mourned the best minds of a generation destroyed by madness. Where Ginsberg’s poem named the wreckage of one kind of American life, this poem names another: the best souls of a city destroyed not by madness but by policy, by a housing market that doubled rents while wages stayed flat, by detox waitlists that turned people toward fentanyl, by warming centers that opened only when temperatures dropped low enough to justify indifference.

“I saw the best souls of my city,” the poem begins, “standing in line at dawn with pockets full of loose change.” I saw them arguing softly over coffee, whispering prayers under fluorescent lights, anointing cracked hands with baby oil, passing a blunt like a peace pipe on a public bench after midnight.

The poem moves through the lives of the community beneath the city’s line of sight — tents become sanctuaries, shopping carts become arks, people stay half-awake so they can watch the others breathe. It names the structural violence that produced these lives without sentimentalizing them. And it turns, in its second movement, toward the audience, refusing to leave the comfortable in comfort:

“I handed out socks and hope while the city debated whether harm reduction sent the wrong message.”

That line, Mellinger has said, hurts because it is true. Outreach workers do holy work — but charity without housing is charity theater. Harm reduction without treatment beds is cruelty with good intentions. Compassion without structural change is a lullaby that helps a city sleep through its own failure.

The poem’s most important section begins with the word “We.”

“We who were called unlovable held one another like scripture under bridges. Shared hunger like lullabies. Passed joints like communion.”

And it ends without consolation:

“They are not lost. They were abandoned.”

Many people came up to Mellinger afterward, some with tears in their eyes. But the poem isn’t the point. The lives are.

One of the names read at the 13th vigil was Timothy John Largent, age 31, from Bakersfield. He just wanted one night when his skull wasn’t screaming. There were no detox beds. Paying clients came first. Fentanyl was easier to find than mercy.

Across the thirteen years of the vigil, the moment that has returned most insistently is the image of an elderly woman — small, fragile — weeping openly, clutching a photograph of her son. Her cries punctuated the stillness in a way that no prepared statement could have. She was not performing grief. She was grieving. And her grief was not only for her son but for what her son’s death revealed: a society that allows its most vulnerable to be discarded, and then gathers once a year under an archway to say their names.

When the last candle was lit and the last name spoken, the vigil ended the way it always does: quietly. The crowd dispersed. The city went back to itself. The officials who attended returned to their offices. The clock tower above the archway continued to move.

The Interaction Order of Longest Night and Its Organizational Accomplishment

Longest Night is the ritual center of the Santa Barbara housing justice movement’s organizational ecology, and it occupies a position in that ecology that no other interaction order can fill. Its participation framework is the most radically open in the entire ecology: anyone may attend, no credentials are required, no prior organizational membership is necessary. Its recognition practices operate on a principle that governance bodies and professional networks cannot sustain: the dead are recognized by name, without diagnosis, without housing status at time of death, without VI-SPDAT score or HMIS entry. The person is the point. The system that failed them is the indictment.

The emotional regime of Longest Night is distinctive in the ecology precisely because it does not regulate grief. In governance settings, the emotional regime requires composure, procedural calm, and the management of feelings that might disrupt productive deliberation. In peer support circles, grief is present but held within structures of mutual support. At Longest Night, grief is the point. The elderly woman weeping openly, clutching the photograph — her emotion is not managed or redirected. It is honored. The silence after each name is not filled with an action item. It is held.

What Longest Night produces, in Gary Alan Fine’s language, is eventful experience: a memorable episode that becomes collectively narrated and repeatedly recalled as a motivational resource. The vigil is not only remembered; it is annually re-enacted, which means it is annually renewed as a source of moral energy for the work that follows. People who attend regularly describe the vigil as the moment that clarifies why everything else in the ecology is worth doing — the governance meetings, the subcommittees, the policy negotiations, the public comment sessions. The names connect the administrative work to the human stakes. They prevent the bureaucratic interaction orders from achieving what they always risk achieving: the normalization of preventable death.

The primary competency cultivated within this interaction order is what this paper calls moral competence: the cultivated capacity to recognize obligation, to hold solidarity across the distance between housed and unhoused, to sustain the emotional commitment that long-term advocacy requires. Moral competence cannot be produced in a planning meeting or a governance body. It requires the specific interaction order of the ritual: the names, the silence, the candles, the interfaith gathering, the poem that refuses closure, the presence of people who knew the dead as neighbors.

There is a final observation that the vigil makes unavoidably clear. The governance interaction order, examined in the preceding vignette, is oriented toward managing the problem of homelessness within the constraints of what is currently possible. Longest Night is oriented toward naming the problem for what it is: not a management challenge but a moral emergency, not a systems failure but an abandonment. The two interaction orders exist in productive tension within the same organizational ecology. Governance without ritual becomes administration without accountability. Ritual without governance becomes mourning without consequence. Longest Night ensures that the ecology never forgets what it is actually for.

Bearing Witness as a Spiritual and Sociological Practice

What Longest Night accomplishes interactionally is also, in a vocabulary this paper has not yet made explicit, a practice of bearing witness. Bearing witness is not merely observation. It is observation undertaken as an obligation — a discipline of sustained, unflinching attention to suffering that one could choose not to see, paired with a refusal to let that suffering pass unmarked. The outreach worker at the stone wall, the LEG member compressing her story for City Council, the priest knocking on the courthouse doors as Joseph: each is practicing a version of the same discipline. To bear witness is to make oneself accountable to what one has seen.

This practice has roots that are simultaneously religious and sociological, and the housing justice movement in Santa Barbara draws on both without fully separating them. The interfaith character of Longest Night signals the religious lineage directly: in the traditions gathered under that courthouse archway, bearing witness to suffering is a sacred obligation, not an optional sentiment. But the sociological lineage matters equally. Ethnomethodology asks researchers to attend with disciplined care to what members of a setting actually do, rather than what theory presumes they do; institutional ethnography asks researchers to trace, with the same disciplined care, how the textual apparatus of institutions organizes what gets seen and what gets erased. Bearing witness, in both the religious and sociological senses, is the refusal of convenient blindness. It is the decision to look, to remember, and to be changed by what one has seen — and, in the case of the activists this paper documents, to let that change become the basis of political action rather than private grief alone.

Vignette G: Hybrid Interaction Orders

Extending the Organizational Ecology into Digitally Mediated Settings

The six preceding vignettes trace embodied, face-to-face interaction orders — settings where activists are physically co-present, where bodies, voices, and silences do the interactional work this paper has theorized. That sequence captures the primary developmental arc of activist formation in the Santa Barbara housing justice movement during the period documented here. But it does not capture the full ecology. Contemporary movement work, including the work documented in the preceding vignettes, increasingly moves fluidly across physical and digital settings, and a complete account of the organizational ecology must follow that movement.

Consider a single campaign as it actually unfolds. The SB ACT Lived Experience Group develops public comment testimony in the manner described in Vignette B — the Hero's Journey mapping, the pair work, the compression to two minutes. Members rehearse their testimony aloud, in person, in the FARO Center conference room. Someone records a short video of one member practicing her testimony on a phone. The clip is posted to the group's Instagram account, with captions added that translate the testimony's structural argument into the visual grammar of the platform: text overlays naming the policy at stake, a call to action in the final frame. A Facebook event announces the upcoming City Council meeting and circulates among allied organizations — CLUE, the Committee for Social Justice, the Housing Justice Coalition — each of which shares it within its own network. An email distributes talking points to coalition partners the morning of the meeting. A Zoom call the night before coordinates which speakers will address which aspects of the policy, ensuring the testimony of ten different people forms a coherent collective argument rather than ten disconnected ones. The City Council meeting itself is livestreamed, extending the audience for the testimony far beyond the people physically present in the chamber. Afterward, members debrief in a Messenger thread, sharing screenshots of comments from viewers who watched the stream, processing together what landed and what did not.

Neil Alperstein's recent account of activism as performance within mediated networks captures part of what is happening here: digital communication is not merely informational but performative, a staging of identity, commitment, and solidarity before multiple simultaneous audiences (Alperstein 2025). But Alperstein's framework, like much of the digital activism literature, tends to lose sight of the organizations, training, and face-to-face relationship-building that make such performances possible in the first place — precisely the interactional machinery this paper has spent its preceding sections specifying. No single moment in this sequence is exclusively “online” or “offline.” The interaction order is hybrid throughout — it moves continuously across physical co-presence and digitally mediated participation, and the competencies activists exercise at each stage are continuous with, not separate from, the competencies cultivated in the face-to-face settings examined earlier in this paper. The narrative competence developed through the Hero's Journey exercise becomes the basis for both the spoken testimony and the Instagram clip. The diagnostic competence developed in political education becomes the policy framing in the video captions. The coalition competence built through years of relationship at the Homeless Activist Luncheon and CLUE becomes the basis for the Facebook network that amplifies the campaign.

What this hybrid sequence requires, and what none of the preceding vignettes fully name, is mediational competence: the capacity to translate movement claims across communication ecologies while preserving their moral and political commitments. Mediational competence is not simply technical fluency with a platform. It is the capacity to recognize that a two-minute City Council testimony, a fifteen-second Instagram clip, and a Facebook event description are different interaction orders with different participation frameworks, different emotional regimes, and different recognition practices — and to move among them without losing the structural analysis and moral claim that the testimony was built to carry in the first place. An activist who has developed narrative and diagnostic competence in the LEG but has not developed mediational competence may find that her testimony, however powerful in the council chamber, never reaches anyone who was not already in the room. An activist who has developed mediational competence can carry that testimony into the digital interaction orders where much of the public, and increasingly much of the next generation of allies, actually pays attention. Sophia Maalsen's study of tenant organizing offers a useful vocabulary for what mediational competence accomplishes in housing justice contexts specifically: activists do not merely use digital tools instrumentally but mobilize them as forms of “algorithmic care” — counter-narratives and archival practices that build solidarity and contest the “algorithmic violence” through which housing discrimination and displacement are increasingly enacted (Maalsen 2025). The Instagram clip and the Facebook event in the sequence above are not merely amplification devices; they are sites where activists practice care against the same algorithmically mediated systems — credit scoring, tenant screening, eviction prediction — that often structure the housing precarity this movement contests.

This paper has deliberately avoided theorizing any specific platform, because platforms change rapidly and a theory built around Instagram or TikTok in 2026 risks becoming dated within a few years. What does not change, and what the theoretical framework developed in this paper is built to explain, is the underlying interactional structure: digitally mediated settings are interaction orders in the full technical sense specified in Section IV. They have participation frameworks (who may post, comment, or share, and with what visibility), competence requirements (platform-specific literacy, visual and textual rhetoric, timing), accountability structures (public commentary, algorithmic visibility, screenshot permanence), recognition practices (likes, shares, comments, and the social capital these confer), and emotional regimes (the performance of authenticity, the management of vulnerability in public disclosure, the particular intensity of online solidarity and online harassment alike). The organizational accomplishment of these interaction orders, like their face-to-face counterparts, is the cultivation of specific competencies — most distinctively, mediational competence — that contribute to the activist career this paper has traced from the stone wall to the courthouse archway.

Mediated Interaction Orders and Organizational Mission

The hybrid sequence traced above raises a question with an empirical answer rather than a merely speculative one: is the balance between embodied and digitally mediated interaction orders distributed randomly across the organizations in this ecology, or does it correlate systematically with organizational mission? The latter, the evidence suggests strongly.

Table 3. Mediated Communication Across the Organizational Ecology

Organization	Face-to-Face Intensity	Mediated Communication	Primary Function
SB ACT Lived Experience Group	Very High	Moderate (Instagram, internal messaging)	Political formation
CLUE Housing Justice Workgroup	High	High (Facebook, Instagram, email, website, media outreach)	Coalition building and public mobilization
Committee for Social Justice	High	High (Facebook, Instagram, campaigns, newsletters)	Public advocacy and campaigns
Showers of Blessing	Very High	Low, but specialized (direct mail, donor letters, fundraising email)	Direct service and fundraising
Continuum of Care / SCHAC / C3H	High	Very Low (agendas, reports, minutes, HUD documents)	Governance and interagency coordination

This variation is not incidental. Organizations oriented toward public persuasion, coalition building, movement recruitment, and agenda setting invest heavily in outward-facing mediated communication, because their legitimacy and effectiveness depend on building and mobilizing a constituency beyond their immediate membership. Organizations oriented toward governance, compliance, and interagency coordination invest comparatively little in such communication, because their legitimacy depends on administrative competence and institutional accountability to funders and partner agencies rather than on public visibility. The Continuum of Care's minimal public-facing digital presence is therefore not an oversight or a generational lag; it is structurally predictable. A federally mandated coordinating body whose audience is providers, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and local government has little institutional incentive to cultivate a public following, however actively its members may use digital platforms in their personal or other organizational capacities.

Showers of Blessing's pattern is instructive for a different reason. Its direct-mail and donor-email fundraising, which raises roughly forty thousand dollars annually, is not a weaker or more old-fashioned version of CLUE's social media presence. It is a different mediated interaction order entirely, cultivating a different competency: what might be called donor narrative competence, the capacity to tell a story of need and impact in the specific rhetorical register that sustains long-term charitable relationships. This is a genuine interactional accomplishment, governed by its own participation framework, emotional regime, and recognition practices, and it deserves a place beside narrative and discursive competence in the paper's analytic vocabulary rather than being treated as a residual or pre-digital category.

The broader point that emerges from Table 3 is that what this paper has been calling digital interaction orders are better understood as mediated interaction orders, a category that includes social media but is not exhausted by it. Direct mail, donor letters, grant applications, HUD compliance reports, board minutes, and newsletters are all mediated interaction orders with their own participation frameworks and competence requirements, and they predate social media by decades. The organizations examined in this paper do not rely on a single channel of communication; each operates through a communication ecology that may include face-to-face meetings, ritual, public testimony, email lists, direct mail, websites, social media, journalism, fundraising appeals, official reports, board minutes, and grant applications, with the relative weight given to each channel determined by the organization's position in the movement-to-governance continuum. The face-to-face and mediated dimensions of this ecology are not competing explanations of how activists are formed. They are intertwined parts of the same organizational ecology, and a complete account of political competence must trace both.

Implications for the Competency Framework

This finding suggests a refinement to the competency framework developed earlier in this paper, though not an expansion of the count of named competencies. Organizational competence, as specified in Section IV, has been carrying more analytic weight than a single competency comfortably bears. The evidence from this hybrid ecology suggests it encompasses at least four distinguishable subdimensions: administrative competence, the capacity to navigate budgets, compliance requirements, and institutional procedure; fundraising competence, the capacity to cultivate donor relationships and tell the organizational story in registers that sustain giving; media competence, the capacity to produce and circulate content across journalism, social media, and public communications; and coalition competence, the capacity to maintain working relationships across organizational boundaries. These subdimensions are not new competencies so much as a more precise specification of what organizational competence, taken seriously across this paper's full empirical range, actually requires.

That this paper's empirical center of gravity remains in face-to-face settings reflects the developmental history of the Santa Barbara housing justice movement during the period of the author's most intensive participant observation, not a theoretical judgment that digital interaction orders are secondary or derivative. The same scholar who once analyzed tourism postcards and AIDS news coverage as documentary representations organizing social relations can, and should, extend that analysis to the TikTok videos, Instagram reels, and livestreamed hearings that increasingly constitute the documentary infrastructure of contemporary activism. The theoretical apparatus developed in this paper — the interaction order, specified by six analytic properties, organized into an ecology that cultivates nine competencies across an activist career — is general enough to do that work. The hybrid organizational ecology, not the meeting-centered ecology of an earlier era, is increasingly the unit within which political competence is produced.

VII. Discussion: The Developmental Arc and the Production of Political Selves

The seven interaction orders examined above — six embodied and one hybrid — are not illustrations of a theory that existed before them. They are the empirical ground from which the theory emerges. Looking across them together, three patterns become visible that no single vignette could reveal alone.

A. The Activist Career as Trajectory Across Interaction Orders

No activist follows exactly the same developmental trajectory through the organizational ecology. The sequence is not fixed, the timing is not prescribed, and the competencies acquired at each stop vary with the person's prior experience, capacities, and circumstances. What is consistent is the directionality: movement from more private, more experiential, and more horizontally organized settings toward more public, more institutional, and more formally accountable ones. The trajectory from street to peer support to political education to institutional governance to public testimony to movement leadership is the general shape of activist formation in the Santa Barbara housing justice movement, even as its specific instantiation varies across individuals.

Over the three years since SB ACT's Lived Experience Group began meeting at the FARO Center, one trajectory above all others has made the paper's central argument concrete and visible.

She arrived at the group’s early meetings uncertain whether her experience was worth anything. She had been homeless, had experienced trafficking, had lived in her car for three years. She was a trained engineer — someone the outside world would never imagine had experienced homelessness — and she carried that dissonance quietly, as though the two versions of herself had not yet been introduced. In the LEG's opening rounds, she spoke carefully, measuring each word against an invisible standard. She listened more than she spoke. She was learning the interaction order: who speaks when, how experiential authority is claimed and granted, what the room recognizes as knowledge worth hearing.

Somewhere in the second year, the shift became visible. She began facilitating small-group exercises. When newcomers arrived uncertain and quiet, she was the one who leaned across the table and said, in the way of someone who has been where they are: you belong here, what you know matters. She had become, without anyone formally appointing her, the group’s peer mentor — the person whose presence told newer members that the trajectory they were on was real, that the transformation they were beginning had a destination.

By the third year she had moved further than the LEG alone could have produced. She now holds a full-time position with SB ACT, signing people up for CenCal health insurance programs and entering clients into the HMIS system — the Homeless Management Information System that tracks service utilization across the county’s homelessness response network. She works at the intersection of the street-level relational world she knows from her own experience and the documentary world of institutional data that she has learned to navigate. She is well-loved by colleagues and clients alike. She is, by any measure, professionally and organizationally functional in settings that would have been inaccessible to her three years ago.

What produced this trajectory was not any single interaction order. The LEG gave her the inverted recognition hierarchy in which experiential authority is the primary currency — the setting in which she first learned that what she knew from living it was knowledge, not shame. The political education meetings gave her structural vocabulary: the language through which personal experience becomes systemic indictment, through which her story becomes not her failure but the system’s. The leadership mentoring conversations — in hallways, in parking lots, over coffee before and after meetings — gave her the organizational literacy to understand how SB ACT works, what the Continuum of Care is, how HMIS data flows from intake to policy. And the public testimony settings — city council, county advisory bodies — gave her the performative competence to carry what she knows into rooms organized around different recognition practices.

This is the developmental arc the paper has been tracing: not a single transformation produced by a single setting, but an accumulation of competencies across an organizational ecology, each interaction order contributing what the others cannot. The engineer who once sat quietly at the edge of a FARO Center conference table now enters the HMIS records of people whose circumstances she understands from the inside. That is not merely a career. It is the social production of a politically competent self — and it is what social movements, at their most pedagogically deliberate, are organized to accomplish.

What the trajectory produces — its organizational accomplishment — is something that no single interaction order could produce alone: a person capable of moving among multiple constitutive normative worlds, carrying the recognition she has received in humanizing interaction orders into the institutional settings that have denied it. This is the pluralization of Mead's generalized other made concrete. The activist who has inhabited the interaction order of the peer support circle, the political education meeting, the coalition governance body, and the county advisory hearing has internalized multiple communities of judgment, and the productive tension among them is precisely what makes her capable of the translational work that movement politics requires.

B. Frames as Interactionally Acquired Competencies

The paper's sharpest departure from framing theory can now be stated precisely. Framing theory analyzes the products of meaning-making: the diagnostic frames, prognostic frames, and motivational frames that movements construct and deploy. Van Dijk's critique identifies the gap: framing theory does not explain how framing competence is produced. The present paper proposes that this production occurs through participation in constitutive interaction orders that cultivate, in sequence, the narrative competence to tell one's story, the diagnostic competence to name structural causes, the discursive competence to speak in movement language, and the representational competence to speak on behalf of others before institutional audiences.

Frames are not merely persuasive ideas that strategically-minded movement entrepreneurs craft and deploy. They are interactionally acquired competencies — capacities that must be learned through practice in specific social settings before they can be exercised in public. The LEG meeting where participants map their lives onto the Hero's Journey structure and compress their stories to two minutes is not merely a consciousness-raising session. It is an apprenticeship in the production of collective action frames. The competence being cultivated — the ability to transform personal suffering into structural indictment within a timed public format — is exactly the competence that Snow and Benford's diagnostic and motivational framing describes. What the present paper adds is the interactional mechanism through which that competence is produced.

C. Social Movements as Pedagogical Institutions

The paper's central claim can now be stated in its strongest form. Social movements are not merely organizations with beliefs, networks, resources, and claims. They are pedagogical institutions — organized systems for producing politically competent actors through participation in constitutive interaction orders. The housing justice movement in Santa Barbara is unusually visible as a pedagogical institution because it has deliberately constructed multiple interaction orders at different levels of intensity and accessibility, each contributing to the developmental trajectory through which formerly unhoused people become recognized leaders, advocates, and institutional participants.

This characterization has implications for how we understand both the sociology of movements and the sociology of democracy. Social movement theory has long asked what movements do — how they frame issues, mobilize participants, build organizations, and influence policy. The present paper asks what movements make — specifically, what kinds of persons they produce, through what interactional processes, with what consequences for their capacity to participate in democratic life. The answer, grounded in the Santa Barbara housing justice movement, is that movements make activists by building organizational ecologies in which multiple constitutive interaction orders cultivate, in sequence, the full range of competencies that democratic participation requires.

VIII. Conclusion: Democracy and the Interactional Production of Political Selves

Democracy is not sustained simply by institutions or elections. It depends upon ordinary people acquiring the interactional competencies required to recognize injustice, deliberate with others, speak publicly, represent communities, negotiate disagreement, and sustain collective action. Housing justice movements accomplish this work not accidentally but systematically. They are pedagogical institutions in which democratic actors are made.

This paper has argued that the mechanism through which this making occurs is the constitutive interaction order — the normative world that determines who may speak, what counts as competent participation, how accountability is organized, and how members recognize one another as legitimate. Social movements construct organizational ecologies of multiple such orders, each specialized, each producing partial competencies, each contributing to the activist career through which formerly marginalized people acquire the capacity for the most demanding forms of public life.

The contribution to symbolic interactionism is threefold. First, the paper pluralizes Mead's generalized other: activists internalize not one community of perspectives but multiple, partially incompatible ones, and the productive tension among them is the condition of political life. Second, it extends Goffman's concept of loose coupling from the singular to the ecological: what matters is not the properties of any single interaction order but the coordinated system through which formation occurs. Third, following Turowetz and Rawls, it imports the second interactionism's concept of constitutive social order into social movement analysis, showing that movement meeting arenas are not merely organizational settings but normative worlds that constitute the persons who inhabit them.

The contribution to social movement sociology is equally specific. Against the political process tradition, the paper shows that political competence is produced, not given — that the capacity for strategic action in contentious politics must be interactionally cultivated before it can be deployed. Against framing theory, it shows that frames are not merely persuasive ideas but interactionally acquired competencies, and that explaining how movements construct frames requires explaining how participants acquire the interactional capacity to produce them. Against resource mobilization theory, it shows that human resources — skilled leaders, experienced advocates, capable deliberators — are not recruited but made, through participation in organizational ecologies that systematically cultivate activist capacities.

The contribution to ethnomethodology is more specific still. Following Turowetz and Rawls, this paper has insisted throughout that interaction orders do not merely host political activity but constitute the conditions of its possibility — determining, prior to any particular utterance, who counts as a competent speaker, what counts as a relevant contribution, and how accountability for political claims is organized. The vignettes demonstrate this constitutive work empirically: Anthony's name is not simply exchanged but interactionally accomplished as a claim to personhood; the Lived Experience Group's recognition practices do not merely permit experiential testimony but constitute it as a form of expert knowledge; the governance interaction order does not merely discuss housing policy but constitutes certain forms of knowledge as administratively legible and others as noise. This is EMCA's distinctive contribution to political sociology: showing not what political actors believe or intend, but how their competence as political actors is produced, moment to moment, through the practical methods participants use to recognize one another as accountable members of a shared normative world.

The contribution to political sociology and democratic theory follows directly. Political sociology has long asked how citizens come to participate in democratic life, typically locating the answer in civic education, associational membership, or socioeconomic resources. This paper specifies a different and more granular mechanism: democratic capacity is produced through participation in a differentiated ecology of interaction orders, each cultivating a distinct competency — narrative, diagnostic, deliberative, representational, organizational, discursive, moral, strategic, mediational — that together constitute what it means to be capable of public life. For democratic theory, the implication is that democratic capacity is not evenly distributed because civic education is unevenly distributed, but because access to the organizational ecologies that cultivate these specific competencies is unevenly distributed. A community with a Lived Experience Group, a CLUE Housing Justice Workgroup, and a Longest Night vigil has a different, richer infrastructure for producing democratic actors than a community with none of these. Democratic theory's traditional focus on institutions — elections, courts, free press — must be supplemented by attention to this prior, interactional infrastructure, without which the formal institutions of democracy have no competent participants to populate them.

The contribution to housing justice scholarship is the most direct. The organizations examined in this paper — the SB ACT Lived Experience Group, CLUE Santa Barbara, the Committee for Social Justice, the South Coast Homeless Advisory Committee, the Central Coast Collaborative on Homelessness, the Behavioral Wellness Commission, the Longest Night Homeless Memorial Vigil — are not merely advocacy organizations. They are sites of democratic formation. They teach people who have been systematically denied recognition in dominant institutional settings to carry that recognition into the very institutions that have denied it. That is not merely political organizing. In the deepest symbolic interactionist sense, it is the social production of selves.

There is a final implication that the paper has been moving toward without quite naming. If social movements are pedagogical institutions that produce democratic actors, then the health of democratic life depends not only on the presence of open institutions but on the existence of organizational ecologies in which the competencies for democratic participation can be cultivated. The defunding of community organizations, the criminalization of public assembly, the displacement of encampments, the elimination of lived experience advisory bodies — these are not merely policy choices. They are attacks on the interactional infrastructure through which democratic actors are made. Defending that infrastructure is not only a housing justice project. It is a democratic one.

References

Alperstein, Neil M. 2025. Performing Activism: Social Movements in the Age of Mediated Networks. New York: Routledge.

Asenjo Palma, Cristina and Fiona Verity. 2026. “How the Rights-Based Approach Can Help Social Work Deliver Social Justice Outcomes: Lessons from Housing Rights Activism in Scotland.” British Journal of Social Work. Advance online publication.

Berger, Mathieu. 2024. “The Frame Analysis of Participation: A Goffmanian Take on Democratic Interaction and Its Ambiguities.” Symbolic Interaction 47(4):555–577.

Blumer, Herbert. 1969. Symbolic Interactionism: Perspective and Method. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Boden, Deirdre. 1994. The Business of Talk: Organizations in Action. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Chari, Sharad and Henrike Donner. 2010. “Urban Pulse: Ethnographies of Activism.” City and Society 22(1):1–10.

Charlton, James I. 1998. Nothing About Us Without Us: Disability Oppression and Empowerment. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Cress, Daniel M. and David A. Snow. 1996. “Mobilization at the Margins: Resources, Benefactors, and the Viability of Homeless Social Movement Organizations.” American Sociological Review 61(6):1089–1109.

Duck, Waverly and Anne Warfield Rawls. 2020. Tacit Racism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fillieule, Olivier. 2013. “Political Socialization and Social Movements.” Pp. 144–165 in The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements, edited by D. A. Snow, D. della Porta, B. Klandermans, and D. McAdam. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

Fillieule, Olivier. 2023. “The Ogre and the Activist: The Sociology of Activist Careers in a Structural Interactionist Perspective.” Pp. 45–68 in Activists Forever?, edited by O. Fillieule, E. Agrikoliansky, and I. Sommier. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Fine, Gary Alan. 2012. “Group Culture and the Interaction Order: Local Sociology on the Meso-Level.” Annual Review of Sociology 38:159–179.

Fine, Gary Alan. 2014. The Hinge: Civil Society, Group Cultures, and the Power of Local Commitments. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fine, Gary Alan. 2020. “Now and Again: Eventful Experience as a Resource in Senior Activism.” Social Movement Studies 19(5–6):576–591.

Gamson, William A. 1985. “Goffman’s Legacy to Political Sociology.” Theory and Society 14(5):605–622.

Gardner, Carol Brooks. 1980. “Passing By: Street Remarks, Address Rights, and the Urban Female.” Sociological Inquiry 50(3–4):328–356.

Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Giddens, Anthony. 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Goodwin, Charles. 1994. “Professional Vision.” American Anthropologist 96(3):606–633.

Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Goffman, Erving. 1961. Asylums: Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Goffman, Erving. 1967. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper & Row.

Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Goffman, Erving. 1983. “The Interaction Order.” American Sociological Review 48(1):1–17.

Habermas, Jürgen. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume 1. Boston: Beacon Press.

Haug, Christoph. 2013. “Organizing Spaces: Meeting Arenas as a Social Movement Infrastructure between Organization, Network, and Institution.” Organization Studies 34(5–6):705–732.

Housley, William. 2021. Society in the Digital Age: An Interactionist Perspective. Bristol: Bristol University Press.

Klandermans, Bert. 1997. The Social Psychology of Protest. Oxford: Blackwell.

Lichterman, Paul. 2005. Elusive Togetherness: Church Groups Trying to Bridge America’s Divisions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Maalsen, Sophia. 2025. “Digital Activism in Housing Struggles: Countering Algorithmic Violence with Algorithmic Care.” Housing Studies. Advance online publication.

McAdam, Doug. 1982. Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930–1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

McCarthy, John D. and Mayer N. Zald. 1977. “Resource Mobilization and Social Movements: A Partial Theory.” American Journal of Sociology 82(6):1212–1241.

Mead, George Herbert. 1934. Mind, Self, and Society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mills, C. Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press.

Polletta, Francesca. 2006. It Was Like a Fever: Storytelling in Protest and Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Rawls, Anne Warfield. 1987. “The Interaction Order Sui Generis: Goffman’s Contribution to Social Theory.” Sociological Theory 5(2):136–149.

Rawls, Anne Warfield. 2009. “An Essay on Two Conceptions of Social Order.” Journal of Classical Sociology 9(4):500–520.

Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation.” Language 50(4):696–735.

Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence Organization in Interaction: A Primer in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sevelsted, Anders and Jonas Toubøl, eds. 2023. The Power of Morality in Movements: Civic Engagement in Climate Justice, Human Rights, and Democracy. Cham: Springer.

Smith, Dorothy E. 1987. The Everyday World as Problematic: A Feminist Sociology. Boston: Northeastern University Press.

Smith, Dorothy E. 2005. Institutional Ethnography: A Sociology for People. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

Smith, Robin James and Tom Hall. 2018. “Everyday Territories: Homelessness, Outreach Work and City Space.” British Journal of Sociology 69(2):372–390.

Snow, David A. and Robert D. Benford. 1988. “Ideology, Frame Resonance, and Participant Mobilization.” International Social Movement Research 1:197–217.

Snow, David A., E. Burke Rochford, Steven K. Worden, and Robert D. Benford. 1986. “Frame Alignment Processes, Micromobilization, and Movement Participation.” American Sociological Review 51(4):464–481.

Snow, David A., Rens Vliegenthart, and Pauline Ketelaars. 2019. “The Framing Perspective on Social Movements.” Pp. 392–410 in The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, 2nd ed.

Snow, David A., Sarah A. Soule, and Hanspeter Kriesi, eds. 2004. The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements. Oxford: Blackwell.

Tarrow, Sidney. 1994. Power in Movement: Social Movements, Collective Action and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tilly, Charles. 1978. From Mobilization to Revolution. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Tilly, Charles. 2008. Contentious Performances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Turowetz, Jason and Anne Warfield Rawls. 2021. “The Development of Garfinkel’s ‘Trust’ Argument from 1947 to 1967.” Journal of Classical Sociology 21(2):108–145.

Van Dijk, Teun A. 2023. Social Movement Discourse: An Introduction. London: Routledge.

Vassenden, Anders, Nicholas Hoynes, Taylor Price, and Iddo Tavory. 2026. “Between Two Rituals: Face and Effervescence as Moments of Social Life.” American Sociological Review 91(3):379–404.

West, Candace and Don H. Zimmerman. 1987. “Doing Gender.” Gender & Society 1(2):125–151.

Whitehead, Kevin A. 2020. Everyday Racism in Interaction. New York: Routledge.

Dedication

For Richard Appelbaum, and for Mickey and Richard Flacks — whose intellectual generosity, moral courage, and lifelong commitments to justice continue to inspire both my scholarship and my activism.

Acknowledgments

This paper emerged over more than three decades of participation in the Santa Barbara housing justice movement, but its intellectual roots reach much farther back. I owe an immeasurable debt to the teachers who introduced me to the interactionist tradition and demonstrated that careful attention to everyday social life could illuminate the deepest questions of democracy, inequality, and human dignity. Don Zimmerman taught me that the finest details of ordinary interaction reveal the organization of social life. Harvey Molotch demonstrated that sociology should never lose sight of power, institutions, and the production of inequality. Tamotsu Shibutani cultivated in me a fascination with collective behavior, symbolic communication, and public life. Thomas Scheff taught me to take emotions, shame, and social bonds seriously as sociological phenomena. Their influence permeates every page of this paper.

The larger vision behind this project owes an equally profound debt to Richard Flacks, whose friendship, mentorship, and example over more than forty years have shaped my understanding of political activism, democratic participation, and the moral responsibilities of the public intellectual. Together with Don Zimmerman, Harvey Molotch, and Richard Appelbaum, he exemplified a model of critical sociology in which scholarship and public engagement are inseparable. Their lives demonstrated that sociology is not merely an academic discipline but a vocation directed toward a more just society.

No paper about housing justice could have been written without the people who have spent decades building the Santa Barbara movement itself. I have learned from organizers, outreach workers, faith leaders, formerly unhoused neighbors, elected officials, and community advocates whose names deserve to be remembered: Rob Fredericks, Laurence, Maureen Earls, Suzanne Riordan, Nancy McCradie, Krystal Freedom, Protest Bob, Rev. Julia Hamilton, Deborah Barnes, Cath Webb, Peter Marin, Gary Linker, Ken Williams, Jennifer Ferraez, Emily Allen, Chuck Flacks, Rev. Jon Lemmond, Rev. Jon-Stephen Hedges, Jeff Shaffer, Frank Rodriguez, and the members of both the SB ACT Lived Experience Group and the Lived Experience Working Group. Although they may not agree with every argument advanced here, this paper reflects what I have learned through working beside them.

I have also benefited greatly from the encouragement, criticism, and friendship of colleagues including Bill Shaffir, Simon Gottschalk, Valerie Jenness, Douglas Maynard, Jack Whalen, and Helen Meloy. Their scholarship and conversations have continually challenged me to think more carefully about interaction, institutions, and public life.

Finally, this paper cannot be separated from my own journey through homelessness. That experience, described in my memoir I Just Wanted to Dance with Dionysus, fundamentally transformed both my scholarship and my life. It changed the questions I ask, the people to whom I feel accountable, and the purposes for which I write. My essays “Learning to Bear Witness to Social Injustice as a Spiritual Practice” and “The Gifts of Our Wounded” describe the ethical and spiritual commitments that grew from those years. They taught me that bearing witness is not simply a method of observation but a discipline of moral attention.

Looking back, it is striking that what seemed the worst period of my life became the beginning of its most meaningful chapter. Homelessness took much from me, but it also introduced me to extraordinary communities of courage, resilience, and compassion. If this paper contributes anything of value, it is because those communities transformed me into both a housing justice activist and, I hope, a wounded healer.

Endnotes

1. This paper draws on but does not exhaustively cite my own published work on homelessness in Santa Barbara, which spans more than two decades of Noozhawk columns and related public scholarship. Representative pieces relevant to the arguments developed here include “The Plight of the ‘Triple Challenged’” (2024), “The Criminalization of Poverty and Our Housing Crisis” (2024), “A Marshall Plan to Build Affordable Housing in Santa Barbara County” (2022), and “The Gift of Our Wounds” (2013). These pieces, along with the Doing Modernity essays developing Critical Interactionism and the Layered Moral Economy of Oppression, and the manuscript Abandonment in Real Time, constitute a single sustained research program asking how consequential social realities — institutional abandonment, political competence, documentary recognition — are produced through ordinary interaction.

2. The journalism corpus cited throughout this paper is illustrative rather than exhaustive. A fuller accounting of this public-facing scholarship, including pieces on rent stabilization, encampment policy, and the criminalization of homelessness, can be found in the index to “Our Neighbors on the Streets,” the author's ongoing blog documenting housing justice advocacy in Santa Barbara.

3. On the documentary sociology lineage informing this paper's attention to forms, HMIS entries, and meeting minutes as constitutive rather than incidental institutional practices, see Smith (1987, 2005) and the broader institutional ethnography tradition she founded, including subsequent work by George W. Smith and Liza McCoy.

4. Longest Night was founded in 2013 by Wayne Mellinger, Rev. Julia Hamilton, and Rev. John Lemmond. A fuller institutional history, including its near-cancellation during the Thomas Fire and the COVID-19 pandemic, and its eventual adoption by the SB ACT Lived Experience Working Group, is preserved in the author's correspondence with vigil organizers dating to 2021.

5. The FARO Center, where the SB ACT Lived Experience Group meets, is a day center for unhoused people in downtown Santa Barbara. Most LEG members also work or receive services at the center, which means the interaction order examined in Vignette B is embedded within, and partially continuous with, the center's broader institutional life.

6. On the reconstructive character of the ethnography presented in this paper's empirical sections, see the methods discussion above. Where dialogue is reconstructed from memory rather than transcribed from recordings, this is noted in the text through hedging conventions (“something like,” “I recall clearly”) rather than false verbatim precision.

7. On bearing witness as a practice bridging religious and sociological obligation, see the discussion within the Longest Night vignette above. The author's essay “The Gift of Our Wounds” (Noozhawk, 2013) develops the related concept of the “wounded healer,” the idea that direct experience of suffering can become, through deliberate practice, a resource for helping others.

8. Acronyms referenced in the governance vignette: SCHAC (South Coast Homeless Advisory Committee); C3H (Central Coast Collaborative on Homelessness); HMIS (Homeless Management Information System); VI-SPDAT (Vulnerability Index-Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool); HUD (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development); HEAP and ESG (state and federal homelessness funding programs, respectively).