(This is a modified version of a lecture Dr. Alperovitz, a fellow of the Kennedy Institute of Politics, recently gave to a number of Boston area groups interested in social and economic development in both the black and white communities.)

IN NORMAL times conventional ideas have tremendous power to hobble new thought. In times of crisis, however, man's tendency to retreat to the security of tradition can be over-whelming.

Even the most thoughtful can be blinded to opportunities for creative change--a lesson we in the Boston area are likely to learn the hard way we slip deeper into the urban crisis coming months.

The man most vulnerable to the p of convention, of course is the mayor of Boston, Kevin White; the problem is the obvious one of Roxbury--and the Mayor, though better than most Mayors, is not likely, despite his efforts, to be able to overcome the tremendous problems he faces. He will probably simply stumble along doing the best he can--until the next motion.

Consider the Mayor's first dilemma: he can undoubtedly use his prestige and influence to move the meager poverty funds still available into any of a number of directions. But funds are very limited--and has no way to get resources on the scale needed.

Again, even when he has funds, there is still the problem of what to do. As many socially concerned businessmen (and university professors) are now asking themselves--how do you decide which of the numerous groups in Roxbury have meaningful programs worthy of support?

Scarce resources on the one hand and competing claims on the other set the terms of the Mayor's dilemma.

Moreover, there are militants and pseudo-militants and moderates and private ghetto businessmen and gangs and a hundred would-be leaders -- each of whom has a political stake in a Mayor's decision.

How can one really know who represents the people of Roxbury? The various leaders all claim support; many deserve it--many do not. Most are not even known by the mass of ghetto people who carry on their day-to-day lives oblivious to names jockeying for space in the Globe.

IN MANY American cities these various dilemmas are conventionally resolved piece-meal, by helping any group that shows some potential for positive change -- and by choosing, helter-skelter, at any moment among conflicting claims to scarce resources. And, of course, ultimately by yielding to the group which can cause the greatest political problem for City Hall.

As the Mayor probably senses, no real solution of a city's problems comes out of this haphazard approach.

In fact, Mayor White, after his politically costly rejection of the United Front, is probably beginning to understand that the conventional approach is also bad politics. Its particular hazard is that when the Mayor chooses any one group and rejects the competing others, he makes one friend and a dozen enemies.

It is the same problem Congressmen face in patronage fights. The unsophisticated observer thinks Congressmen love to hand out patronage -- like postmasterships in small towns. The truth is they hate it. For, as one Congressman puts it: 'The day before you choose your postmaster, you have ten friendly supplicants and sycophants. The day after, you have nine violent critics--and one ingrate!"

The likelihood is, of course, that our Mayor--like most Mayors (and Congressmen)--will struggle through his term fighting dilemmas based on group competition instead of resolving them.

Each day he will get deeper and deeper into the bog of the conventional approach, doing a bit here and a bit there, but failing to solve the big problems; slugging it out, avoiding punches from both right and left -- ending up bruised and battered politically--like any man in the middle of a violent fight. Which is just what he is.

The tragedy is that there is an alternative--but it may be too unconventional for the Mayor, even though it has been tried elsewhere with great success, and even though its wisdom has been demonstrated in arenas other than the city.