Perhaps you saw the June 17 story about us in the Washington Post. If you didn't and wish to, check it out here. As we understand it, an eleventh-hour editorial push for a front-page-worthy spin on the collective's history led to a portrayal that didn't get anything wrong per se, but neither did it provide a narrative about how we got from where we were in 2006 to where we are now. Focusing on nuts and bolts would have taken away from the article's sex appeal, and let's be honest: if there's one quality most people associate with the Washington Post, it's sex appeal.
Don't get us wrong: media coverage is what it is, and we're not soliciting tissue donations here. Additionally, our clientele has been universally supportive of the story, and it's their opinions by which we live or die as a business. (Special thanks must be extended to those of you who donned virtual HazMat suits and lowered yourselves into the chasm of proud ignorance and sour grapes that is the article's online comments thread in order to defend our honor.) Still, we think a few words are in order about what this particular story missed.
Quoting the three earliest members of the collective seems like a good idea--unless they are the only ones you quote, and they're all men, and there are six other co-owners who are left silent. And while we do indeed count some photogenic females among our number, photographing them exclusively doesn't make up for failing to print any of their thoughts. (To be fair, there is a small group shot that includes the dudes as well.) On the surface, we're not a particularly diverse group--with the notable exception that we are, in our current incarnation, majority GLBT. But the business does represent something different to each of us, and we've all brought our individual influences to bear on it. What were the watershed moments in Brighter Days' development? What are its plans and challenges for the future? Is there any place we can get some white shirts (we are soliciting donations for those)? Readers are left to speculate.
The story accurately highlights two fundamental aspects of the business: that it was founded on anarchist principles, and that not all past or present workers apply that tag to their personal politics. For those of us who do, the article represented an opportunity to limn the quietly constructive side of the anarchist tradition as a counterweight to the popular specter of its loudly destructive aspect. But the organizational tenets of Brighter Days could have drawn inspiration from any number of democratic tributaries running out of the broader political stream. The keys to our success have been hard work and a commitment to our clients and their quadrupedal counterparts. A Post reader could almost be forgiven for understanding the collective as a vehicle for people who want more R&R time than work time. To be sure, a dog walking job can be as low-intensity as one wishes to make it, but we've made it a full-time gig (and then some).
But as we've expanded, we've remained committed to slow, smart growth rather than the chaotic pursuit of every dollar waved in our direction. That has allowed us to remain bike-powered rather than combustion-reliant. It's made it (relatively) easy for us to cover for each other during vacations. And we don't spread ourselves so thin that we can't provide quality service to our existing clients.
Anarchy and self-discipline, standing hand-in-hand in a sun-drenched field overrun by dancing bunnies dressed as ice cream cones. Who knew?
The most validating result of the story has been hearing from people who have been inspired by our project to start collective businesses of their own. If you are reading this and have similar inclinations, please don't hesitate to get in touch! We are happy to provide as much insight as we can. As far as the history of cooperative enterprises go, commercial or political, we're standing humbly on the shoulders of giants. But the view from up here is great, and there's still plenty of elbow room.
