Resource Mobilisation Theory

Resource Mobilisation Theory The study of social movements is a very broad and encompassing task; with each new movement come new theories, approaches and events that change the field. Social movements, as defined by sociology, can be characterized as a group of persons, who, by sharing a common ideology, band together to try and achieve certain political, economic or social goals.  [1]  There are a few standard theories to describe, understand and evaluate the effectives of social movements. Amoung the major theories currently looked at today are resource mobilization, collective behaviour theory, frame alignment theory and political opportunities theory. Although each has its own merits and shortcomings, this essay will only be examining the strengths and weaknesses of one particular theory, that of resource mobilization. The strengths focus on the theorys ability to effectively dissect the interactions between various material and non-material resources, the political structure and mobilization, while the weaknesses will examine the theorys reliance on economic models, its lack of historical perspective and its ignorance to real-world factors. The conclusion of the paper will also discuss the future use of the theory, its changing adaptations and whether or not the theory itself is still viable in todays world. B: History and Assumptions of the Theory The history of resource mobilization theory begins pre-dominantly with research done in the 1970s. Unlike other theories of social movements at the time, resource mobilization theory, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦replaced the crowd with the organization, and dismissed the psychological variables of alienation and frustration in favour of the rational actor employing instrumental and strategic reasoning.  [2]  It was this difference, which made it stand out amongst academics and prompted a flurry of research to compile an overarching framework regarding resource mobilization. However, within this framework of the theory lie two distinct approaches: First, the economic or organizational/entrepreneurial model presented by McCarthy and Zald and secondly, the sociopolitical or political/interactive argued more favorably by authors such as Tilly, Diani, and McAdam. Tilly, Diani and McAdams emphasis focuses predominately on employing a political model in order to examine the various processes that ar e claimed to give rise to social movements.  [3]  They base their ideas on the structure of grievances, in so far as they look to determine what opportunities, links or networks exists within the aggrieved group, in order to give rise to enough mobilization as to claim a social movement. Factors they included range from various forms of political power, to the oft conflicting interests of the state and the aggrieved group and finally to the political resources the group has or may need  [4]  . Conversely, the organization/entrepreneurial model emphasizes resource management, the role of leaders and leadership, and the dynamics of organization. This approach is much more economics based and therefore tries to apply various economic theories to the study of social movements. Charles Perrow, when describing this approach, makes light of the fact that it is much more capitalist based and therefore the organization/entrepreneurial branch makes reference to such ideas as: product differentiation, social industry, resource competition, social movement entrepreneurs etc.  [5]   The theory also sets aside three main assumptions when discussing social movements. 1) That economic prosperity and affluence will generally lead to a greater number of social movements.  [6]  2) That people who participants in social movements are inherently rational.  [7]  3) That the social movements participants must achieve a certain level of political and economic resources for their movement to be a success.  [8]  Therefore, as nations become more prosperous and generate necessary social movement resources such as education, wealth and communication, these in turn will help spur social movement activity. It therefore follows that this increase in activity will allow rational people to accumulate the resources needed for their social movement to be successful. Kendall defines the theory as such, resource mobilization theory focuses on the ability of members of a social movement to acquire resources and mobilize people in order to advance their cause.  [9]  Note that the aforementioned affluence is said to be most beneficial when coupled with an open state, which allows groups to mobilize freely and encourages debate and dissent as it promotes the values of freedom, capitalism and transparency. Also, the growth of the welfare state is often seen as a boost to social movements as the State itself can provide resources to struggling movements in the form of aid, workers or development programs.  [10]   The resources that the theory describes range from material to non-material, but are said to include, money, peoples time and skills, access to the media, and material goods such as property and equipment.  [11]  Simply put, resource mobilization theory describes how effective social movements can be, by examining how the groups involved in social movements both mobilize their supporters and manage their resources. Some theorists, such as Anthony Oberschall have furthered the view that the resources defined by the theory are in a constant state of struggle, in which they are perpetually created, consumed, transferred and/or lost.  [12]  Oberschall therefore views social movements much like organizations who vie for a limited number of resources in the political marketplace.  [13]   A key feature to remember, is that the resources(or assets) outlined in the theory can be of both material and non-material nature. Material assets include currency, buildings, people, telephones and computers. Non-material assets include ideology, will-power, political support, leadership and solidarity.  [14]   The other main aspect of the theory is the mobilization aspect. Mobilization is said to occur when a particular group(in this case one assumes a social movement) assembles the aforementioned resources with the explicit purpose on using them to achieve a common goal, change or message through collective action. A distinction must be drawn between the two, as merely gathering resources is not mobilization. Only when those resources have been collectively assigned to pursue a purpose, is mobilization said to take place.  [15]   B. Strengths of the Theory B1. Explanatory power of the Theory: Foweraker discusses the explanatory staying power of the theory, including its ability to adapt over time.  [16]  He states that despite it coming under criticism over the past decade or so, The theory has expanded its explanatory power by including a range of ancillary arguments. The first one of these arguments is that social networking has proven to be a decisive tool in aiding the mobilization of social movements.  [17]  Authors John Hansen and Steven Rosentone, in the book Mobilization, Participation and Democracy in America discuss the impact of social networks on social mobilization by stating, Social networks multiply the effect of mobilization.  [18]  This can be seen in everyday life, as mass communication(often one of the most important resources mentioned when discussing resource mobilization theory) has taken off in a way that not even States can control. The freedom of the internet makes mobilization not only easy, but participation costs shrink. It therefor e comes to no surprise that as social networks have grown, so too have the ability of organizers to mobilize transnational social movements such as the global environmental movement, the tea-party movement of the trans-national European movement. Another aspect of this particular strength of resource mobilization theory lies in its explanatory power to explain the various dynamics of mobilization; to help identify the various resources that social movements need in order to mobilize, the distinctive organizational features needed with condition social movements and the ever growing relationships between the political system as a whole and these movements.  [19]  By moving slightly away from the purely social/cultural or political and instead focusing more generally on resource management and strategy, resource mobilization theory highlights the growing importance of strategic/instrumental action. It also shows a level of understanding in which the decisions taken by the various actors actively affect the outcome of the conflict between the movement and the system.  [20]   B2. Strong analysis of the political system and its interactions with collective action: Resource mobilization theory also includes a very important emphasis on the political process. This is a key feature which provides useful insights into the how social movements interact within the political system. Moreover, an examination of the structure of the political system tends to yield interesting results regarding the set of political factors with either facilitate or harm the emergence of social movements.  [21]  The theory further goes on to focus on the interactions between collective action, social networks and group identity. Foweraker identifies these as prior social organizational interaction and says, Levels of prior social organization influence the degree and type of social mobilization.  [22]   C. Weaknesses of the Theory C1. Adherence to economic cost/benefit models: The first of several weaknesses of resource mobilization theory centre on its apparent adherence to an economic rationality, which presupposes various costs and benefits of a common rational participants. Foweraker believes this shortcoming gives rise to two fundamental flaws of resource mobilization theory and described these two problems as such, First, social actors are presumed to employ a narrowly instrumental rationality which bridges a rigid means/end distinction. The careful weighing of costs and benefits implied by the means/end model falls far short of a universal or complete account of collective action, if only because action may be its own reward. More particularly, to recall Webers analysis of social action, the motives that predispose the actor to act may be not merely instrumental, but habitual, affective and, above all, expressive.  [23]  If the theory only cares about the rationality of actors, then it fails to account for what rationality actually is, as the definition of such ranges from individual to individual. If one person enjoys protesting for the sake of protesting and not, as the theory would say, to achieve a goal, then how can the theory describe their rationality as a participant in a social movement? C2. Rationality without reference to social context and lack of cultural considerations: The second weakness of the theory revolves around an idea of solitary rationality. Resource mobilization theory assumes that rationality is at all times beneficial, yet with any social or historical context, it is nearly impossible to determine how the various costs and benefits of the movements are calculated. Foweraker describes this as a tautological trap, in which the theory, must then define the actors interests in such a way that no matter what choice is made it is always sent to further those interests.  [24]  Melucci agrees with this ascertain by stating that, collective action is never based solely on cost-benefit calculation and a collective identity is never entirely negotiable.  [25]  As Scott correctly points out, social movements must include, the cultural as well as the purposive aspects  [26]  for as it stands now, resource mobilization theory understands the how of social movements, but not the why.  [27]  Also, an associated weakness of the theory is that it gives little room for any sort of cultural considerations. Scott addresses this notion, by underpinning that without any reasonable consideration of cultural, solitary action seems very unlikely.  [28]   C3. Ignorance of real-world variables and factors: The third overarching criticism of resource mobilization theory stems of its apparent lack of real world considerations. The theory purports to understand the dynamic relationship between social movements, yet pays no heed to events such as political negotiations, bribery, espionage and sabotage. Foweraker outlines political negations as being more commonplace than any other political tool and states, Since [rational] choice is often a result of interactions with a living political environment, it makes little sense to think of it as uncontaminated by negotiationsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Ã‚  [29]  Another interesting point made by Scott Lash and John Urry in their paper, The New Marxism of Collective Action: A Critical Analysis argue that, the rationality applying to one-off game-like situations does not necessarily apply to long-term relations.  [30]  This also applies to the theory of free-riding in which people may participate in a movement purely because of the advantageous position it will put them in, and not because they truly feel motivated in the movement itself. Therefore resources may be drained and fail if enough free riders are brought on. In particular, the theory fails to explain socials movements that are too weak to distribute selective benefitsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦Ã‚  [31]  due exactly to this problem. D. Conclusion and Future: After having discussed the various strengths sand weaknesses of resource mobilization theory, this paper will now conclude with a look into the future; regarding both longevity of the theory and the overall attractiveness to academics in its current form. Given the overarching criticisms inherit to the theory itself, it should come as no surprise that the theory has lot a lot of ground to other theories of social movements, such as Political Opportunities theory, Frame Alignment theory or any of a new number of New Social Movement theories.  [32]  However, there is still plenty of underlying merit of resource mobilization theory, which this paper believes will keep it in the foreground of social movement theory for the foreseeable future. This is mainly due to the essential fact that without resources, regardless of how one defines them, social movements simply cannot generate enough momentum to sustain themselves. Therefore, taking a look into the various approaches of mobilizat ion with regards to these resources is as important now, than it was in the 1970s. Coupled with its relative openness and adaptability should make resource mobilization theory a useful tool for the foreseeable future.

Performance Management and Performance Appraisal Essay

Evaluating the performance of an employee has become and important task for managers. This way they know were or in what aspects they need to work more to achieve the companies goals. â€Å"Managing employee performance is an integral part of the work that all managers and rating officials perform throughout the year. It is as important as managing financial resources and program outcomes because employee performance, or the lack thereof, has a profound effect on both the financial and program components of any organization.† 1 (US department of the interior) This essay talks about performance management and performance appraisal, the difference between them, and how a successful performance management plan work and their common mistakes. To understand the difference between performance management and performance appraisal first we need to understand the meaning of both concepts. These two terms are usually used while evaluating employee efficiency in an organization. Lets start by learning what performance management is â€Å"Performance management is simply a term used to describe a set of activities that assess whether goals or objectives are being met. These activities include defining work, setting goals, providing feedback and encouraging development. Performance management is about shared responsibility and understanding of roles, expectations and standards† For better understanding about PM is really about the university of Berkeley posted this example in their web-side â€Å"The campus carries out its mission through the individual and collective contributions of its employees. To do their best, staff members need to know that those contributions will be recognized and acknowledged. Performance Management is one of the key processes that, when effectively carried out, helps employees know that their contributions are recognized and acknowledged. Performance management is an ongoing process of communication between a supervisor and an employee that occurs throughout the year, in support of accomplishing the strategic objectives of the organization. The communication process includes clarifying expectations, setting objectives, identifying goals, providing feedback, and evaluating results† 2. (University of Berkeley). The Office of Personnel Management defines performance management as the systematic Process of: 1. Planning work and setting expectations 2. Continually monitoring performance 3. Developing the capacity to perform 4. Periodically rating performance in a summary fashion; and 5. Rewarding good performance Know lets look at the meaning about Performance appraisals it is â€Å"The process by which a manager or consultant (1) examines and evaluates an employee’s work behaviour by comparing it with preset standards, (2) documents the results of the comparison, and (3) uses the results to provide feedback to the employee to show where improvements are needed and why. Performance appraisals are employed to determine who needs what training, and who will be promoted, demoted, retained, or fired† 3 (Business dictionary) A great appraisal needs to be fair, objective, two-way, realistic, clear, on-going and specific. Just by reading the definitions it easy to see that Performance appraisals is just one part of performance management. Although one helps the other there are a few differences that can be noticed: it can be said that performance management is the older and traditional approach. On the other hand performance appraisal is a sort modern method or approach of evaluating the performance of an employee of a firm or an organization. â€Å"Performance appraisal consists in the setting of job standards and evaluation of the past performance†¦.† On the other hand performance management concentrates on managing the performance in state time so that the performance can reach the expected level† 4 (Aaron 2011) Also performance appraisal only focuses on the past performance and its done normally twice a year on the other hand performance management â€Å"is a continuous function in the sense that it is done in an on-going fashion to ensure that the employees discharge their capabilities in such a way that targets are achieved in real-time basis. Hence it is often said that performance management is continuous in purpose whereas performance appraisal is occasional in purpose.† 4 (Aaron 2011) If we start talking about methodology there are a few differences performance appraisal is more of a formal structure while performance Management has a more flexible and casual nature. Know that we know what they mean we can talk more about performance Management. To achieve greater organizational success an organization needs a strong performance management, that process organizations put in to measure and reward the abilities of their workforce to achieve their goals. Improving morale, creating loyalty and increasing overall productivity in your employees through performance management is the key to your company outperforming the competition? Performance management not only ensures that the employees do their job but they do it the right way After reading about performance management I came across a lot of steps to make an effective one, the following are the 5 steps that I agree will make a successful PM plan. 1. Planning your Business workload; set the organizations goals strait where do managers want to take the organization, what tasks need to be done and how. For example â€Å"Have you ever tried to drive somewhere without proper directions? This almost always turns out to be a frustrating experience. Sure, if you stop and ask enough people you may eventually reach your target destination, but think of all the wasted energy, time, and resources needed to accomplish your goal. Let’s take this concept and move it to the realm of managing a business. Does it make sense to expect your employees to reach a goal or strategic objective without providing them a road map of where they are headed? â€Å" (Josh Greenberg 2011) Employees need to be involves in this process, by this they improve the morale, helps managers make sure they are no gaps in the communication process, and gives employees a clear idea of what is expected from them. 2. Monitoring business and individual performance: managers need to watch carefully the work of their employees to make sure it is done on time and the right way and see how well employees are able to function. It is also useful to keep track not only of the tasks already done but also the ones to come. 3. Individual and team performance development; involve employees to keep and upgrade standards, develop new skills, teach new procedures. It may also mean to give new responsibilities to those employees that deserve them, the ones that show they have outgrown their old ones. 4. Rating individual performance; Evaluate the employee performance address in which areas the employee needs to grow but do not forget the ones where he has already excel. It’s telling the employee where he/she is standing. 5. Rewarding great performance; this may seem like the least important but it is actually one of the most important ones, when a manager rewards their employees for their hard work it helps keeping them motivated and happy. When an employee is happy they usually keep performing at a high level (Martin Haworth) In order not to have an unsuccessful performance management, it is important to make sure that the process is well understood; managers and employees need to understand the process and its use. There might even be a training to use the system â€Å"it’s not just using the tool but using it properly.† So develop a good process and make sure everyone’ uses it. The plan must be relevant and â€Å"strategic and be part of the fabric of the organization†¦. Employees need to be able to see how working their plan will make both them and their organization more successful. In order to do that, the plan must link, at least in part, to organizational, departmental and job specific mission and planning. Other elements must enable the success of the individual.† 5 (Erik Britten, 2011) so make the plan meaningful and useful to the employee and the organization. Lets remember that performance management is an everyday activity, â€Å"If plans are developed and aligned properly, employees and managers should be able to link what they are doing almost daily to something in their plan. Managers need to connect those dots frequently in group or individual meetings.† 5 (Erik Britten, 2011) these is why it’s important to make performance management an ongoing activity. Mistake usually happen when something is not a 100% understood so lets remember to use a meaningful and useful plan for the employee and the organization, develop a good process and make sure everybody uses it and not do it twice or tree times a year but everyday, to avoid some mistakes. The biggest error that can happen is that not to manage performance, it is easy to come with excuses not to do so but it is a risky move. The most common excuses are: â€Å"my staff don’t want to be performance managed,† â€Å" not enough time,† â€Å"It’s easier to ignore underperformers and move them on to someone else to manage, † â€Å"It’s not worth the effort and does not pay off.† The list can go on and on but all these are wrong. As we have learned before performance management â€Å"The effective management of performance is a primary managerial responsibility and has significant impact on employee performance and retention.† All employees expect feedback, â€Å"Ignored underperformance rarely goes away and it gets increasingly harder to tackle.† 6 (Government of South Australia) Other errors include improper documentation or preparation. Fix the mistake by being prepare, use your time more effectively. The employee may assume the manager does not know what is going on or that she simply doesn’t care enough to prepare. Not knowing employees, get to know your employees and the quality of their work, managers need to listen, and not expect their employee to know everything and exactly how he wants the task done. Accepting excuses, don’t give a chance of a poor performance in an organization. Find a solution and establish an action plan to avoid the problems in the future. Avoiding the tough issues, It’s hard for an employee to correct their problems without any help. It’s hard to give â€Å"bad† feedback but it is really worth it if not the problems or when the work gets harder it will be all-wrong. There is a saying in my country that says â€Å"el que no habla trabaja doble† It basically says that the one that doesn’t speak or doesn’t address its problems works double. Not following through, â€Å"Most of the time and effort spent in planning for and conducting an effective interview is lost if you don’t follow through with the actions/plans discussed in the evaluation†. 7 (HRN performance solutions) Not giving the proper feedback, â€Å"critical aspects of managing an individual’s performance are daily interactions and feedback. Performance that is not actively managed is nonetheless influenced by default. Failure to provide feedback means employees are unaware of whether their performance is acceptable and valued and can be a major disincentive to stay with the organisation. Furthermore, failure to manage negative performance can have harmful consequences on the morale of the rest of the work team† 6 (Government of South Australia) Listen to employees feedback, do not ignore the employees comments, if the manager does not agree he can tell them why and then they can discuses it, but ignoring a comment can be very damaging, it can even lead to an employee not to participate in meeting or share their ideas. Overemphasizing Good Performance, â€Å"compliments quickly become meaningless if they aren’t specific and substantive. They can also give an employee the false impression that you are completely pleased with everything he does. Be honest and direct.† 7 (HRN performance solutions) â€Å"The Halo Effect, â€Å"Allowing one highly favourable (or unfavourable) employee behaviour or characteristic to affect judgment about the entire appraisal ignores other employee strengths and weaknesses.† 7(HRN performance solutions) Performance Management is a method by which a business Owner can ensure that his or her business is constantly growing and achieving at the level they desire, its important to do it no matter what, it will help achieve the employee and organization goals. With a good plan in performance management creates an engaged and aligned workforce. Without one, your organization could lose more than just time and money – you could lose knowledge, employees and, in the end, your competitive edge. 8 (Josh Greenberg) Sources 1. US Department of the interior â€Å"Performance Appraisal Handbook† 2004 http://www.doi.gov/hrm/guidance/370dm430hndbk.pdf 2. Human Resources at UC Berkeley â€Å"Concepts & Definitions† http://hrweb.berkeley.edu/guides/managing-hr/managing-successfully/performance-management/concepts 3. Business dictionary â€Å"Performance Appraisal† http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/performance-appraisal.html#ixzz1rdm7iVn5 4. Aaron 2011 Difference between Performance Management and Performance Appraisal http://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-performance-management-and-vs-performance-appraisal/#ixzz1rdoPSf7O 5. Erik Britten, 2011 â€Å"Performance Management Best Practices: What are your 3 tips for managing employee performance?† http://www.focus.com/questions/performance-management-best-practices-what-are-your-3-tips/ 6. Goverment of South Australia â€Å"Managing People, Managing Performance† page 17 http://www.espi.sa.gov.au/files/Managing_people_Managing_Performance_good_practice_guide.pdf 7. HRN performance Solutions, 2012, â€Å"15 Common Errors Managers Make When Appraising Employees† http://www.hrnonline.com/tryit/AppraisalTips-15CommonErrors.asp 8. The Key to Successful Performance Objectives By Josh Greenberg http://performance-appraisals.org/experts/succobj.htm Other Sources: – Cleland David, Munsey Wallace. 1967 â€Å"Who Works with whom?† Harvard Business Review.page 84 – Goldman, Marshal and Conner Alice, â€Å"Businessmen Appraise East-West Trade†.1966. Harvard Buisness Review page 6 -Barrett Rowena â€Å"Factors affecting Perseptions of workplaces Industrial Relations Climate† International Journal of Emplyment Studies, volumen 3 number 2 october 1995 page 77 – http://www.riverlogic.com/documents/effective_performance_management.pdf – Martin Haworth Performance Management – Five Easy Steps To Success http://www.articlesbase.com/management-articles/performance-management-five-easy-steps-to-success-204895.html – http://www.focus.com/questions/performance-management-best-practices-what-are-your-3-tips/

International Legal and Ethical Issues in Business

In this paper I will discuss environmental regulations and labor laws in place in Thailand and Singapore. This paper will show that while Singapore seems to have stricter environmental regulations in place in it’s country, the labor laws in Thailand seems to protect its citizens better with better work hour regulations and wage requirements. Singapore’s labor laws can stand to be revisited so as to keep the working citizens safe from greedy business owners. What are Thailand and Singapore’s environmental regulation levels? Thailand’s government has been known to keep loose environmental standards for investors. Many foreign investors have been used to Thailand’s loose environmental regulation, however, the country’s government is now struggling to deal with tough new environmental regulations. An upheaval from residents in some of the more industrial areas of Thailand has set in motion a movement to toughen environmental regulations, which has many companies like Ford thinking of relocating some of its manufacturing plants. Singapore, however, has very strict environmental regulations in place, with an extension of liability even reaching to directors and officers of the companies that operate in Singapore. The government in Singapore has passed strict laws to ensure that corporations operating in the country do not compromise the health of their people. Violators of the environmental regulations in Singapore may even face mandatory jail time if found guilty of participating in activities that are deemed harmful to the environment and the people living in the area. What kind of legislation has been passed in the country regarding working hours and wages? The Department of Labor in Thailand enforces labor laws in the country. Currently, Thailand has some pretty good labor laws in place to protect it’s citizens. The most hours a person can work per day in Thailand is 8 hours per day or 48 hours per week. If the job is deemed hazardous, the workday is considered complete after 7 hours, or 42 hours per week. Employees must be paid overtime pay at a rate of 1. 5 to three times the normal hourly rate when the maximum amount of hours has been surpassed. The minimum daily wage rate varies, depending on location. Some provincial areas can pay a daily rate of 137 baht, or $3. 43 U. S. dollars, whereas the daily rate can be 175 baht or $4. 38 U. S. dollars in Bangkok. Office and management staff working full-time hours can earn about 15,000 baht (US $375) to 150,000 baht (US $3,750) per month, depending on the level of management and experience. Singapore does not have any regulations in place with regard to a minimum wage for it’s workers. The Employment Act in Singapore only stipulates that workers be paid timely, which is translated to mean at least once a month. Workers who make less than 2,000 SGD per month may not be required to work more than eight hours a day or 44 hours per week. Employees working in management positions or higher may be permitted to work longer hours, depending on what terms are outlined in their contract. Do you think the country's environmental regulation is sufficient? Explain. It seems Singapore has sufficient environmental regulations in place, what with punishments which include jail time for those found guilty of infraction of the regulations. However, I feel that Thailand still has a long way to go in establishing effective environmental regulations. The people of Thailand are still fighting to get proper regs in place to keep their environment and their people safe and healthy. It seems that Thailand is reluctantly coming around, however, the threat of losing many of its foreign investors because of new environmental regulations might hinder any real progress. Do you feel that the country's hour and wage legislation is ethical? Explain. Thailand’s hour and wage regulations are adequate; however, Singapore’s hour and wage regulation still leave way too much room for employees to be taken advantage of by their employers. The fact there is no national minimum wage requirement leaves too much room for employers to underpay their employees. There is also no regulation in place to limit the amount of hours per day an employee can work. There is also no regulation for overtime pay. The lack of regulation in place to determine how many hours per day or week a person can work before overtime pay is required leaves the employees at the mercy of their employers. References http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704182004575056421383885014.html http://www.business-in-asia.com/thai_labor_law.htm http://www.ehow.com/list_5989991_labor-laws-singapore.html

Biography of Lee Krasner, Abstract Expressionist Artist

Lee Krasner (born Lena Krassner; October 27, 1908–June 19, 1984), an American painter of Russian-Jewish descent, was a pioneering Abstract Expressionist of the New York School. For decades, her reputation was overshadowed by that of her late husband, painter Jackson Pollock, whose superstardom and tragic death distracted from her own career. Years after Pollocks death, however, Krasner received recognition for her own artistic accomplishments. Fast Facts: Lee Krasner Occupation: Artist (Abstract Expressionist) Also Known As: Lena Krassner (given name); Lenore Krasner Born: October 27, 1908 in Brooklyn, New YorkDied: June 19, 1984 in New York City, New YorkEducation: The Cooper Union, National Academy of Design Spouse: Jackson PollockKey Accomplishment: Krasner remains one of the few women artists to have her work exhibited in a retrospective at the Museum of Modern Art. Early Life Lee Krasner was born in 1908 to Russian-Jewish immigrant parents. Krasner was the first in her family to be born in the United States, just nine months after her parents and older siblings emigrated due to growing anti-Semitic sentiment in Russia. At home in Brownsville, Brooklyn, the family spoke a mix of Yiddish, Russian, and English, though Krasner favored English. Krasners parents ran a grocery and fishmonger in East New York and often struggled to make ends meet. Her older brother Irving, to whom she was very close, read to her from classic Russian novels like Gogol and Dostoevsky. Though she was a naturalized citizen, Krasner felt connected to her parents’ homeland. Later in life, she often bristled at the suggestion that she was a fully American artist. Lee Krasner (American, 1908-1984). Untitled, 1948. Oil on canvas. 18 x 38 in. (45.7 x 96.5 cm). Promised gift of Craig and Caryn Effron, P.1.2008. The Jewish Museum, New York.  © The Pollock-Krasner Foundation/Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York Education Krasner always showed a sense of initiative. At an early age, she decided that the arts-focused, all-girls Washington Irving High School in Manhattan was the only school she wanted to attend, as its arts focus was a rarity at the time. Krasner was initially denied entry to the school due to her Brooklyn residence, but she eventually managed to gain admission. Perhaps ironically, Krasner excelled in all classes except for art, but she passed because of her otherwise exceptional record. During high school, Krasner abandoned her given name Lena and took on the name Lenore, inspired by the Edgar Allen Poe character. After graduation, Krasner attended the Cooper Union. She was very popular (though not necessarily academically successful) and was elected to various school offices. At Cooper Union, she changed her name once again, this time to Lee: an Americanized (and, notably, androgynous) version of her given Russian name. Having attended two art-centric girls schools, the idea of being a woman artist was not remarkable to the young Krasner. It was not until she went to the National Academy of Design that she encountered resistance to her chosen career path. She was riled by the idea that women were sometimes kept from doing what the male artists were permitted to do at the traditionally-minded institution. Ernst Haas / Getty Images Life as a Professional Artist 1929 was a notable year for Krasner. That year marked the opening of the Museum of Modern Art, which exposed her to the Modernist style and the enormous possibility it represented. 1929 also marked the beginning of the Great Depression, which spelled disaster for many aspiring artists. Krasner joined the Works Projects Administration (WPA), which employed artists for various public art projects, including the many murals on which Krasner worked. It was on the WPA that she met critic Harold Rosenberg, who would later go on to write a seminal essay on the Abstract Expressionists, as well as many other artists. Krasner lived with Igor Pantuhoff, a fellow painter of Russian origin and an alumni of the National Design Academy, for most of their ten-year relationship. However, Pantuhoffs parents held anti-Semitic views of Krasner, and the two never married. (Pantuhoff realized his mistake after he left the relationship, and he eventually went to New York to win Krasner back. By that time, Krasner had already taken up with Jackson Pollock, who, in his typically bellicose fashion, physically chased Pantuhoff from the premises.) Lee Krasner and Jackson Pollack in east Hampton, ca. 1946. Photo 10x7 cm. Photograph by Ronald Stein. Jackson Pollack and Lee Krasner papers, ca. 1905-1984. Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution. Archives of American Art, Smithsonian Institution. Relationship With Jackson Pollock In the late 1930s, Krasner took classes led by the expressionist painter and famed pedagogue Hans Hofmann. She also joined the Artist Union. In 1936, at an Artist Union dance, Krasner met Jackson Pollock, whom she would meet again several years later when they both exhibited their work in the same group exhibition. In 1942, the couple moved in together. Pollock’s rise to fame, stewarded by his wife, was meteoric. In 1949 (the year he and Krasner married), Pollock was featured in Life Magazine under the title, â€Å"Is he the greatest living painter in the United States?† Some accounts suggest that Krasner spent so much time promoting her husband’s career that she did not have time to dedicate herself to her own work. However, this version of history is misleading. In Springs, Long Island, where the couple bought a house soon after they married, Krasner used an upstairs bedroom as her studio while Pollock worked in the barn. Both were known to work furiously, and would (when invited) visit each others studios for advice and critique. However, Pollocks alcoholism and infidelity damaged the relationship, and the marriage ended tragically in 1956. Krasner was away in Europe, and Pollock was driving under the influence of alcohol with his mistress and another passenger. Pollock crashed his car, killing himself and the other passenger (though sparing the life of his mistress). Krasner was bereft at losing her husband, and ultimately channeled this emotion into her work. Lee Krasner (American, 1908-1984). Gaea, 1966. Oil on canvas. 69 x 125 1/2 in. (175.3 x 318.8 cm). Kay Sage Tanguy Fund. The Museum of Modern Art, New York.  © 2010 The Pollock-Krasner Foundation / Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York Artistic Legacy It was not until after Pollock’s death that Krasner began to receive the recognition she deserved. In 1965, she received her first retrospective at the Whitechapel Gallery in London. She experienced a surge of interest in her work in the 1970s, as the feminist movement was eager to reclaim art history’s lost women. The appeal of the sidelined wife of a storied American painter made Krasner a cause to champion. Krasners first retrospective in the United States opened in 1984 at the Museum of Modern Art, just months after her death at the age of 75. Her legacy lives on at the Pollock-Krasner House and Study Center at Stony Brook University. Her estate is represented by Kasmin. Sources and Further Reading Hobbs, R. (1993). Lee Krasner.  New York: Abbeville Modern Masters.Landau,  E. (1995). Lee Krasner: A Catalogue Raisonnà ©.  New York: Abrams.Levin, G. (2011). Lee Krasner: A Biography. New York: Harper Collins.Munro, E. (1979). Originals: American Women Artists. New York: Simon and Schuster, 100-119.