The Elite Map: How 1960s Activist Tactics Became a Union Weapon
What started as a 1968 student protest tactic has evolved into a high-stakes professional service. We look at how 'power structure research' is now the primary tool used by unions to find corporate financial weak spots.
Mapping the elite has moved from 1960s student protests to the world of high-priced labor consulting, turning 'power research' into a professionalized weapon for the modern activist.
Long before digital databases or automated background checks, 1960s activists were doing things the hard way: manually mapping out boardroom connections across the Ivy League and the defense industry. Michael Locker and groups like the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) helped build this foundation. What they started as a radical experiment in transparency has since morphed into the 'corporate campaign.' It’s a tactical playbook designed to hit executives where it hurts—their personal finances and their social standing. It’s no longer just a protest; it’s standard operating procedure for big-budget institutional bargaining.
The story usually focuses on the idealism of civil rights and anti-war movements, but let’s be real: this is also a business. Locker Associates, which launched in the late 1970s, bridges the gap between old-school radicalism and today’s labor economics. Unions pay for this strategic research to get an edge during messy disputes. That shift is important. Power research has moved from a public-interest tool to a proprietary service. The biggest winners aren't just grassroots organizers anymore—they’re the institutional unions and well-funded coalitions that can afford to hire specialized consultants.
“What began as a radical experiment in transparency is now a standard operating procedure for high-stakes institutional bargaining.”
A recent Jacobin profile paints this history as a win for leftist strategy, but it skips over some of the stickier ethical questions. There’s no real industry standard for data privacy here. And the kicker? These same tactics can—and often are—mirrored by corporate interests looking to neutralize labor organizers before they even get started. Whether it's navigating university divestment or Palestinian solidarityLoaded Language campaigns, the methodology remains a neutral tool. The impact depends entirely on who’s holding the map.
We still don’t know the true financial scale of this labor-consulting world. Most of these research contracts are kept quiet, buried deep in union expenditure reports. But as student protests over university endowments heat up again, a new generation is dusting off the 'Who Rules Columbia?' model for the digital age. It’s a shift in how social change actually happens. It isn't always about winning hearts and minds through mass persuasion; sometimes, it’s just about the surgical application of economic pressure based on granular financial data.
Summary
Back in the 1960s, 'power structure research' was a scrappy activist tactic. Today, it's a high-stakes professional service that defines modern labor strategy. It started with figures like Michael Locker, who famously mapped Columbia University’s ties to the military-industrial complex in 1968. Now, that same methodology is a sophisticated tool used to hunt for financial weak spots on corporate boards. It isn't just about ideology anymore—it’s a niche economy. Firms like Locker Associates have turned the 'follow the money' mantra into a professionalized service that gives unions the leverage they need in contract fights and divestment campaigns.
⚡ Key Facts
- Power structure research gained traction in the 1960s through groups like SNCC, NARMIC, and NACLA.
- Michael Locker cofounded NACLA and coauthored the 1968 'Who Rules Columbia?' pamphlet.
- Michael Locker cofounded the research firm Locker Associates in the late 1970s.
- Power structure research was influenced by academics C. Wright Mills and G. William Domhoff.
The Elite Map: How 1960s Activist Tactics Became a Union Weapon
Network of Influence
- Jacobin Foundation (subscription sales)
- Labor unions and activist groups (validation of their tactics)
- Michael Locker and Locker Associates (reputational boost/legacy building)
- The article does not address potential criticisms or limitations of 'power structure research,' such as data privacy concerns or the potential for methodology to be used by opposing political/corporate interests.
- It lacks a neutral perspective on the conflicts mentioned (e.g., Columbia University protests, South African apartheid) to provide balance.
The article frames power structure research as an essential, heroic, and historically grounded tool for leftist activism and labor organizing, centering the narrative on intellectual pioneers of the 1960s.