collective process overcoming power

8/12/2019 Collective Process Overcoming Power

1/20

C O L L E C T I V E

P R O C E S S

T H I S I S A H A N D B O O K O N G R O U P P R O C E S S

F O R E G A L I T A R I A N C O L L E C T I V E S . I T S F O C U S I S

O N T H E O F T E N U N R E C O G N I Z E D N E G A T I V E

D Y N A M I C S T H A T C A N O C C U R W H E N P E O P L E

T R Y T O W O R K C O L L E C T I V E L Y .

O V E R C O M I N G

P O W E R

T h e C o m m o n W h e e l C o l l e c t i v e


2/20


3/20

how to proceed, especially in a difficult or trying situation. hat4simportant is not the wor# of the group nor effecting political change/it4s the fact that we care about and value one another, as we do allpeople. $hat4s why we4re in the struggle for social justice, after all.

3ome groups may have no patience for tending to the wea# andthe whiny. $hey may feel that those who do not contribute or areslowing or bringing the rest of the collective down need to move onand get out of the way. Any group can choose that path, of course.

ut if they do, they have a responsibility to do so honestly andopenly. 3uch an enterprise can no longer call itself consensus*basednor egalitarian. $he premise of consensus and e%uality rests firmlyon the belief that everyone in the group is valued and necessary tomaintain the integrity of the whole. "t presupposes a shared effortand mutuality which cannot be undermined by pic#ing and choosingwho is valuable and who is not.

espotism by the collective, which rests on groupthin#, wherebyeverybody has to agree, no one can dissent, and those who dissentor who simply are not well li#ed are outta here, does not e%ualconsensus.

Introduction To Consensus

Generally, a collective that operates by consensus holds regularfacilitated meetings at which proposals are submitted and discussed.

At the end of each discussion, the facilitator will call for objections; ifnone are made, the proposal will be said to have passed byconsensus. Yet, this process doesn't always guarantee that therereally is consensus, as a lot depends on the power dynamics that

come into play. For instance, if members are individually approachedahead of time and persuaded on the merits of the proposal, that's amanipulation of the process, as it bypasses the open forum, which isat the heart of consensus. r, if an influential or intimidating membervoices strong support for the proposal and e!hibits annoyance orimpatience with anyone who raises concerns, thereby restricting thefree e!change of ideas and possibly influencing the final outcome,the decision will not have been made by consensus.

"f some members do not have access to the information neededto ma#e an educated choice but have to rely on the assurances ofthe proponents that their plan is sound, that, too, will essentially

invalidate the consensus.$he issue is even thornier when proposals do not pass. "n many

instances, if unanimity cannot be reached, the issue will simply bedropped and the group will revert to the status %uo. $hat means thatthe matter the proposal was designed to address will remainunresolved. $hat is not consensus. &onsensus re%uires that allmembers declare the outcome of a discussion to be at leastmarginally acceptable. "f someone proposes a change because he orshe perceives a problem that needs addressing, that person cannotsimply be overruled for the sa#e of group agreement.

loc#ing, the prerogative by one or more persons to stop a

decision that everyone else would choose to pass, is the one aspectof consensus that seems to be universally embraced. "t does notmean, however, that one person can hold the collective hostage tohis or her whims. loc#ing must be used judiciously and not as apower play. (ore often, however, pressure is applied by the moredomineering members of the group to urge someone )$ to bloc#and not to voice dissent. loc#ing puts one in the spotlight and easilycasts one as a troublema#er, particularly when it means defyingpowerful members who have already privately persuaded the othersto go along with their agenda. (embers who have establishedthemselves as de*facto leaders +yes, this happens all the time in

egalitarian collectives and who may have attracted a following withinthe group through charisma or persuasiveness, or by scoring


4/20

impressive achievements for the organi-ation, don't have to resort tobloc#ing to #ill a proposal. "t's enough for them to display annoyance,irritation, or agitation with the suggested action, generating distrustamong others. $he right individual could destroy a proposal simplyby frowning at the right times, sighing in e!asperation, or laughingsarcastically. &learly, this is not consensus.

&onsensus is not just the end result of the group's decision*ma#ing process, or the part where a vote is ta#en and the vote is

unanimous, barring any bloc#s or stand*asides. $he consensusprocess has to be built into the entire structure of the group ororgani-ation and form the basis for all of its activities and basicoperation. $his is true for all egalitarian collectives, even those whoaccept some form of majority vote in their decision*ma#ing and maytherefore not strictly be defined as operating by consensus.

$he basic premise of consensus, and indeed of any egalitariangroup, is that all members of the group are valuable, everyone'sopinions deserve consideration, and everyone's input is necessaryfor the group's efforts to proceed, in a spirit of collaboration. "t differsfrom the group process used by conventional organi-ations in that it

does not set up an adversarial relationship where one side wins+often the majority, but just as often the side bac#ed up by the mostauthority and the other side loses. "n consensus, argument is notengaged in to defend a position but to arrive at solutions thateveryone can consent to. "n order for everyone to freely giveconsent, there must be no coercion or une%ual power. $hus theabsence of hierarchy and authority is not an added stipulation to thestructure of egalitarian collectives but is essential to the consensusprocess.

There/s &o!e

"t is our belief and hope that virtually all problems in collectivescan be overcome by applying compassion, tolerance, and patience,and by being thorough and even*handed in our thin#ing.

ecogni-e that some people are a big pain in the ass, but thatdoesn4t mean that they are agent provocateurs. And even if they are,the best way to deal with disruptors in either case is probably to give

them a certain amount of leeway to be themselves, to let them carryon instead of demanding that they cease. :rovocation can bedefused simply by not engaging it.

"f the level of annoyance is such that it cannot simply betolerated, then tal# it over with the person/ let him #now whatbehaviors of his are causing problems for you and help him find waysto change them. Actions that we may see as negative usually arisefrom a need on the part of the person engaging in them/ whether it4sthe need to be listened to, to get to the bottom of issues, etc. ur jobis to help find a way for the person to still be able to have his needmet if he agrees to drop the offending behavior. $he only way to do

that is to tal# to him. :eople who are being a nuisance don4t seethemselves that way. $hey have a reason for what they4re doing. $ryto learn their perspective. 3ome people act in bad faith. Hearn theirperspective too, so you can e!pose it for what it is.

"f we care, genuinely, about mutuality and inclusion, if we believethis to be one of the basic reasons why we want to wor# for a better,more just world, then we need to as# ourselves a simple %uestion/ ifthis person whom we cannot stand were a member of our family,would we turn her out into the streetD r would we put our heartsahead of our frayed nerves and learn to deal with her annoyingcharacter traitsD Hi#ewise, if a member of our family spo#e fran#ly

and un#indly to us +Hoo#, you4re driving me nuts/ could you pleasejust shut upD


5/20

"t has been suggested that rather than going it alone one shouldset out to build a coalition, persuading each person individually,through private conversation, before ma#ing one4s concerns public.$his is classic political strategi-ing. e feel very ambivalent aboutthis. n the one hand, it might wor#, and it could be preferable toe!posing oneself as a sole target to a verbal battering. n the otherhand, it4s a manipulative tactic that could be characteri-ed as slea-y,depending on the amount and %uality of the persuading involved.

Furthermore, you will always be out*slea-ed by the other party ifshe is willing to go further than you are. $his is not a competitionworth entering into unless you4re willing to go over to the dar# side.

After your fellow collective members have figuratively beaten you upwith personal attac#s, vilification, and calls for your banishment, wethin# you will want, at least, to wal# away with your integrity.

The Particular Vulnerability of Collectives

$he consensus process is based on the assumption that allmembers of the collective are ma#ing a good faith effort to wor#cooperatively, honestly, and in support of one another to achieve themutually agreed*upon ends of the group. $his e!pectation of goodwill can leave a collective particularly vulnerable, however, tomanipulation by individuals who may see# to use their participation in

the group to steer it in a direction that better suits them or as ameans to further their own sense of importance or control.

e are familiar with the coercive tactics of pushy salesmen/gaining our trust by empathi-ing with our concerns and assuring usthat they are on our side, promising to help us by providing us0atgreat sacrifice to themselves, they tell us0with something we wantand need. hen we fail to appreciate their sincere and hard*wonefforts on our behalf they act deeply hurt and betrayed.

(ost of us are wary of salesmen and may not fall for theirpitches. ut when we are dealing with a fellow collective member,someone who is committed to the same cause and who embraces

our shared belief in e%uality and fairness, we are not li#ely to suspecthim or her of ulterior motives. (oreover, if one were to e!pressreservations about the motivations of a fellow collective member, onemight be accused of undermining the mutual trust that is essential tothe collective process.

1nfortunately, we have seen ugly power plays and underhandedmanipulation of the group's loyalties happen again and again inegalitarian collectives.

2!hibiting stress, an!iety or grave worry is a common way formanipulators to e!ert influence, since most of us are conditioned towant to help someone in distress, and we may be so eager to do so

that we will overloo# other priorities just to ease the discomfort as%uic#ly as possible. y appearing fretful at the possibility thatsomething might not get done or put upon by having to do so muchhimself, a de*facto leader can galvani-e people to act withoutattention to previously agreed*upon parameters. 3imilarly, actinghurt, shoc#ed, or giving the appearance that one is seething withrighteous indignation in the face of a concern that has been raised isa %uic# way to silence inconvenient dissent.

$he group's most common reaction to a faction or individual whosee#s to sway the collective's will is not, as one would hope, callingthe authoritarian manipulators to tas#, but gratitude that someone is

ta#ing on the difficult wor# of running the group and its activities.$hese members become complicit in the power*grabbing tactics of


6/20

the self*appointed leader+s. ftentimes, collective members actuallyoffer these self*appointed elites their loyal support and becomeopenly distrustful or disdainful of those who %uestion the actions orauthority of the leadership. At this point, the group is not only nolonger operating collectively or by consensus, it has effectivelybecome a private club.

.hat/s a 0one Person to "o1

"f you4re reading this boo# because you see a problem in yourcollective that you thin# should be addressed, you may well be alonein your %uest. "f you4ve actually raised your concerns with the group,you may suddenly find yourself the outcast, with the rest of themembers possibly either openly hostile or utterly indifferent.

"t4s all well and good to say that all the people in a collective

need to ta#e responsibility for the group4s functioning in order toavoid power ine%ualities and ensure a true spirit of consensus andcollectivity, but if you4re just one person, and the group is in fact notta#ing responsibility and is allowing a self*appointed leader or factionto steer decisions +including the newly*arrived*at conclusion thatperhaps you are no longer a valued or wanted member, what canyou alone doD

e wish we had the answer. +ur own personal solution hasbeen to stagger away, blinded by pain, to tend to our wounds in adar# corner, wondering what hit us and why. e also decided towrite a boo# on collective process. $his chapter is more than

anything a cautionary note. ecause you have read the contents ofthis boo# +and hopefully a number of others on the topic of collectivefunction and dysfunction, you may consider yourself armed with anarsenal of information and insight on what is going wrong with yourgroup. You may feel confident that you can ma#e a good case to themembership for the need for self*analysis and reassessment ofpriorities. ut that doesn4t mean you won4t still find yourself alone andthe subject of attac#s and slander.

2vidence from boo#s is very unconvincing to people who wonOtma#e an effort to try to understand the situation or the underlyingproblems, and even less so to anyone who has already reached a

conclusion based on rumors, speculation, and innuendos. $here is asaying, which unfortunately is all too often appropriate in collectivesthat are e!periencing conflict/ (y mind is made up, don4t bother mewith facts.. )ever assume that someone who is raising a concern is justwasting the group's time. +$hat can happen, of course, but, at worst,the outcome of such a situation will simply be a certain amount of

time wasted. (uch more often, someone who feels threatened by

@. 3uggesting +or insisting that fundamental principles should be setaside to deal with a crisis +or to appeal to important constituencies,li#e sources of funding.

B. Eaving no patience for fundamental principles +implying that they,or ideals in general, are childish.

5C. elishing verbal arguments with those less #nowledgeable ormore vulnerable just for the glee of crushing them.

55. emonstrating contempt for other people4s ideas or their right toe!press them +i.e. by scoffing, ridiculing, or belittling. )ot to beconfused with honest debate, which engages. &ontempt onlysilences.

56. &ontrolling situations with fear by flying into a histrionic rage atinsignificant provocation +i.e. a group didn4t put away chairs after ameeting, people wor#ing on a project didn4t call before stopping by.

57. &ontrolling situations with fear by predicting dire conse%uences.:eople who are worried or perceive an impending crisis are muchmore li#ely to succumb to manipulation.

59. &reating and spreading doomsday scenarios while settingoneself up as the lightning rod to deflect them.

5=. :aranoia. Ascribing nefarious underlying motives to someone4sapparently innocent or merely uninformed actions. Going on theattac# is often the most effective way to avoid having to answer for

one4s own behavior +e.g. someone who borrows without as#ing theright person is a thief< and should be banned; someone who adoptsa dog and moves it into the space obviously thin#s the group4s spaceis his own private home.

5>. &reating self*fulfilling prophecies that serve one4s goals. +Fore!ample/ repeatedly stating that the neighbors are becoming lessand less tolerant of loud pun# roc# shows.

5?. Flaunting one4s #nowledge +esp. of anarchism, collectivism,radicalism to set oneself up as the go*to person for advice on how to

proceed.


10/20

The Need For Kindness

Although collective members should not subject one another tofa#e sentimentality and cloying praise, the shared effort of being in acollective presupposes good will and genuine consideration for eachperson involved. "f the basis for interactions among the group is not#indness, tolerance, and acceptance in spite of unavoidable flaws,then there is a dynamic at wor# which does not support consensus.

$he basis for consensus is not shared decision ma#ing +that4s anoutcome, but fundamental respect for the concerns of each memberand for the person herself or himself. henever there is bullying,ridiculing, or grandstanding, there is no consensus.

"n $he :roblem ith :oliteness< we stress the need to allowmembers to e!press anger and other unpleasant or difficult emotionsand opinions. "t4s o#ay for a member to be angry, annoyed, or wrong.:eople ma#e mista#es; the collective should consider that a normalpart of functioning. $hose who commit blunders should strive tocorrect them and then move on. hat is not o#ay is bad behaviorthat is intentional/ that is, it has been devised to create a particular

outcome, whether it4s to intimidate dissenters, prove a point, ordemonstrate one4s supremacy in a given area. "t4s also not o#ay toupset other people just to amuse oneself.

2ven those of us who elect to participate in egalitariancollectives have been living in a society that places people inpositions of authority and submission with respect to one another.(ost of us understand that e%uality means neither giving nor ta#ingorders and rejecting any form of established hierarchy, but when itcomes to informal hierarchies, collective members sometimes fallbac# onto what they4ve been accustomed to by mainstream culture.For instance, if someone seems particularly #nowledgeable in a

given area and willing to ta#e on high*visibility tas#s, he is sometimesallowed to attain a position of informal leadership. hat ma#es thispossible +in addition to garden*variety la-iness is the mainstreamnotion, especially difficult to sha#e among those of us who too# pridein doing well in school and being recogni-ed for it, that people shouldbe praised and ac#nowledged for their talents and successes. "n atruly egalitarian group, everybody contributes according to his or herability and availability, and no one e!pects to get or ta#e credit for hisor her achievements. Eero*worship is incompatible with consensus.

All accomplishments are somehow built on someone else4sshoulders.

Hoyalty, which on its face might seem li#e a good thing, has noplace in egalitarian collectives that strive to be fair to all members.

egalitarian goals notwithstanding, the opinions of people who havedistinguished themselves in some way will naturally carry moreweight. r we may become concerned that the outcome of thegroup's wor# will not be of the high caliber that we, ourselves, feelcapable of achieving. thers among us may readily accede toindividuals who seem #nowledgeable and capable of ta#ing onchallenging problems, and may even frown on those who don't allowthemselves to be molded, further alienating individuals who

challenge the leadership.(any conflicts arise out of the desire to control other people'sbehavior and to control the output of the group's activities. heneveran attempt is made to manage or direct another member of thegroup, no matter how well meaning +to preserve harmony, enddisruption, ma#e time to tend to the wor# of the group, ensure high%uality, etc., that person will inevitably feel resentful, and possiblyvery hurt or angry. "f he or she reacts, conflict begins. (any conflictsthat drag down collectives for months, often resulting in indeliblefeuds, could have been prevented if the collective's members weremore willing to tolerate the coe!istence of different opinions,

approaches or strategies, objecting only when a fundamentalprinciple was at sta#e.$he end result of a project that has been produced collectively is

an uneven patchwor# of viewpoints and ability levels. (a#ing roomfor everybody to contribute, even when ability is not e%ual, is astrength, not a wea#ness; so is letting the process show. e areaccustomed to valuing a slic#, polished presentation, but if we let theseams show, this will empower others with information about howsomething was put together. "f we accept a heterogeneous, bumpyoutcome as a given, before the wor# even begins, we will avoid a lotof head*butting further down the road.

ecause groups based on consensus and e%uality presupposemutual trust and a shared sense of mission, many of us may e!pectsolidarity, harmony, and #indness to permeate such groups. $o thecontrary, adhering to egalitarian, anti*authoritarian principles meansapplying minimal interference to one another, or letting people bewho they are0including the annoying, the trying, and the obno!ious0and accepting the outcomes as well.


11/20

Relin,uishing Control of Pro-ects and Peo!le

$he egalitarian group affords its members little opportunity tocontrol other members or the group itself. ecause there are noleaders, no one is in a position to force another person to act orrefrain from acting in a given situation; only the collective as a wholecan intervene to limit unprincipled behavior. 3ince the entirecollective has to become involved in order to restrict someone4s

autonomy, such a measure should be underta#en only if the behaviorin %uestion is e!treme. +e have seen many instances in whichsmall gaffes are trumped up into serious charges as a way ofe!ercising control, but that4s another topic. "n many collectives, weare li#ely to encounter some people who have annoying %uir#s,others who are chatterbo!es, and others who just don't thin# beforeproposing stupid ideas. ut these are not the egregious #inds ofbehavior that re%uire official control; galling as they may seem attimes, they must be allowed to e!ist.

hen collective members try to force a desired outcomeaccording to personal desires, taste, or style, they are basically

violating the principles of ma!imum autonomy and free choice. $histendency will almost always lead to arguments and ruffled feelings.+$he corollary to this is that group members have a profoundresponsibility not to ma#e themselves a nuisance to others. A trulyegalitarian collective will li#ely not be smooth or harmonious +thoughit may be loving and collegial, but highly heterogeneous, rife withrough spots and bumps.

"n an egalitarian group, not everybody has to agree or li#e eachother or approve of the wor# that is being done; they merely have toconsent to it. $his means that unless something is really important orcentral to the values of the organi-ation, the wisest course is often

just to let things be. $hat can be hard to accept when we have beenaccustomed to value results over all other considerations.

Almost all people who come to the movement for social justicewere brought up and have been functioning in conventional society,which presupposes supremacy of one person over another accordingto status or perceived superior ability. hether we mean to or not,we bring these biases and e!pectations with us when we agree to

join groups that operate according to e%uality and collectivism.$hose of us who are accustomed to emerging as natural leaders

+for instance, those who've been successful in academia may havean unac#nowledged belief that others will readily recogni-e our

wisdom and defer to it as a matter of course. e may assume that,

Hoyalty is what causes us to stic# up for someone close to us, evento the detriment of another, when we #now our crony is wrong. r tooverloo# facts and forego investigating a matter even when it wouldmean clearing an innocent person of wrongdoing. Fairness re%uiresthat we listen to all and consider all possibilities before arriving at anopinion.


12/20

Creating Pariahs

ne of the ugliest and most reprehensible tendencies that we'veseen in egalitarian collectives is the creation of pariahs/ A smallgroup decides that some individual is undesirable, then he is singledout for vilification and e!pulsion. $his practice might seem odd forgroups supposedly founded on e%uality, mutual respect, andacceptance, but it happens remar#ably often. "n fact, this matter

deserves a much more thorough treatment than it will receive in thisbrief chapter.

ften this process of e!pulsion is justified by reference to theanarchist notion of Ibanning.I According to a typical anarchist vision,people will live or operate in small groups with no leadership, ma#ingall community decisions by means of direct democracy. +"n otherwords, everyone should be able to participate in such decisions and,ideally, consent to them. "f somebody somehow sabotages thecommunity or otherwise causes or threatens serious harm, there areno police or other authoritarian forms of enforcement to handle thematter; therefore, the best way for the community to deal with the

offender is to simply, democratically banish her. $his practice is saidto be less authoritarian than the conventional methods of criminal

justice and attendant imprisonment, since the person is still free tosee# out association with other communities. $he crucial factor thatis often overloo#ed by present*day collectives is that banning ismeant to be reserved for e!treme, dangerous, or criminal behavior,not as a way to get rid of someone whom some group memberssimply find annoying or inconvenient.

"t's normal for people sometimes to be obno!ious or aw#ward.$he basis for collectives founded on e%uality is that people have theright to be themselves, regardless of whether their attitudes ma#e

them popular or not. $hat is not to say that members have to acceptbeing mistreated by boors. "f somebody is bothered, he or sheshould let the offender #now that such behavior is bothersome andas# that it change. "t may not, in fact, change, in which case thesetwo people simply must find a way to put up with each other. Eumaninteractions are rarely perfect.

hat so often happens, however, is that one or both people willma#e a federal case of the issue, start slinging accusations fast andloose, and demand that the collective intervene to remove thesupposed culprit. "t is not uncommon for members to be slea-ilymanipulated so that one side might gain advantage over the other. A

hapless person who wouldn't thin# of devising strategies ormasterminding plots may suddenly find that she is universally hated,

intimidation, and violence +psychological or physical violence areresorted to if the group4s majority or most vocal members do not gettheir way.

"t is not possible, in our view, for the person who feels pushedout or abused to simply be mista#en in perceiving a sustainedcampaign of attac#s and vilification by the group +or a faction of thegroup against him8herself. $he hurt that is e!pressed over and overin situation after situation is undoubtedly real, and it should not be

dismissed, regardless of whether or not the person e!periencing itwas originally +or continues to be at fault.egardless of the merits or faults present in each situation, it's

not o#ay for us to inflict emotional pain on one another. $hat shouldbe a basic tenet.

A commitment to compassion and justice and against cruelty+yes, that's what it is needs to be overtly stated as the basis for howan egalitarian group operates.

e only need to loo# at the current political situation to see thewages of indifference and casual acceptance of cruelty. nce wehave relin%uished our moral compass, we can condone both small

and huge moral insults with logical arguments and pragmatism.here is the outrage of the American public at the thousands ofdeaths and injuries of "ra%i civiliansD 2ven for those who believe thewar to be politically justified, how can ecstatic cheering be theoverwhelming reaction to death, suffering and destruction on amassive scaleD ouldn4t the more human reaction be soberregretfulness that sometimes harm is done in order to achieve apurportedly worthwhile objectiveD

Yet even among the activists who vehemently oppose war,many do so for political reasons, because they object to imperialismor other political forces they believe to be at play in this conflict, not

out of moral outrage. And of those who invo#e humanitarianobjections to war, many adopt that view as a persuasive arguingposition, not as a deeply held revulsion to causing suffering.

$he purpose of activism, fundamentally, is to create a betterworld, one where there is greater justice, e%uality, and harmony andless pain and hardship. "t is not to put forward a particular agenda.hen we overloo# this basic truth and allow ourselves to act withdeliberate cruelty toward people in our own collectives, then go on to

justify our actions by saying that we vilified or attac#ed our comradesbecause they were interfering with important political organi-ing, wehave twisted our motives into an indefensible moral pret-el.


13/20

Cruelty

Eow we choose to treat each other in a group that is committedto e%uality and justice goes to the core of what we hope toaccomplish as activists. "f we hope to bring about a fairer, morecompassionate world we have to start with our most basicinteractions. $he fact that deliberate cruelty does not lead to greater

justice should be too obvious to mention. Yet in collectives it4s very

often considered normal, not even worthy of a mention or of a raisedeyebrow. $ormenting someone mercilessly until they flee thecollective0or even the entire local activist scene because they areso afraid of encountering further abuse0is common practice. e4venever heard anyone spea# up to say that it4s morally repugnant or totry to stop it in any way.

&ondoning and accepting cruelty as business*as*usual is anattitude and a way of living. "ts potential for creating and promotingsocial injustice and a more vicious, less tolerant world ma#es it amatter of the utmost importance/ it is our duty and responsibility tovigorously oppose cruelty within our own midst.

$he same behavior we saw as children in school playgrounds,where an individual is singled out for no other reason than he or sheis an easy mar# and is then subjected to a gleeful campaign ofabuse, is much too often at wor# in our activist collectives. Are we soconditioned by our upbringing in a society that forces us to conformto authority that whenever the mantle of established authority isremoved +li#e it is in an egalitarian collective and in a playground,we can thin# of nothing better to do than prey on each other withcruel name*calling and senseless attac#sD Another fre%uentconse%uence of new*found freedom is to immediately establish andfollow new hierarchies based on who is more popular or stronger or

the best at manipulation versus who is unpopular, out of the group'smainstream, the easy target, etc. "t's just li#e Hord of the Flies...

"ndividuals who believe they have been mistreated by theirfellow group members feel genuine pain. "t is not possible orappropriate, in our view, to e!plain away somebody's pain bypointing to the group's positive wor# or invo#ing regulations that thepariah in %uestion may or may not have properly followed. o youhonestly believe that anyone deserves to have cruelty visited uponthemD 2ven if they4re a pain in the ass, if they4re impossible to dealwith0even if they themselves are cruel0that is no reason to taunt,torment, bully, slander with vicious lies, etc. As activists, we hope to

create a world in which difficulties can be addressed and everyattempt is made to resolve them, not one where suppression,

perhaps without even #nowing why. 3ometimes secret meetings areheld, without the #nowledge of the accused, at which the attendeeswill hatch a plan to ostraci-e her. 1sually, this is done for no otherreason than that the complainants are too cowardly to confront theperson directly and simply as# her to alter her demeanor.

(any times a person who is e!pelled does not even #now whathe has done wrong and might very well have corrected himself if onlyhe'd been told about the offending behavior. $oo often groups gang

up against someone only because he has aw#ward social s#ills andunwittingly comes off as impolite or bossy. o we need to say thatthis does not constitute consensusD e've seen junior high studentswho behave more maturely.

An uglier form of creating pariahs occurs when a domineeringmember or faction intentionally see#s to discredit and eject someonewhom they consider a threat to their hegemony. 3ometimes,someone is targeted this way after she has been outspo#en incondemning the control that the self*appointed elite has wrested fromthe collective. "n other cases, however, the targeted person mayhave merely insisted that the group follow proper democratic

procedure. "f ta#en seriously, that recommendation might have thepotential of removing power from the leading faction 0 therefore, itmust be suppressed.

$he easiest way to impeach the credibility of a dissenter is toaccuse him of having a personal grudge against the person he iscalling to tas#. $he manipulator can then bait the dissenter withpersonal insults, and if the poor soul is ruffled and responds in #ind,our (achiavelli will have proven her case/ I3eeD Ee is just out to getrevenge on me 0 that's what all of this has been aboutI

$here is never a wrong time to call into %uestion someone'sactions as they relate to the integrity of the collective's process. "n

fact, it is every member's responsibility to do so if and when he feelsthe situation calls for it. 1nfortunately, few people ever do. :eoplefind it easier not to stic# their nec#s out to spea# out on what theythin# is right. $hey may even join in the condemnation of a dissenter,because they don't li#e to have their little bubble jostled. $hey mayreadily agree that the troublema#er is not raising an issue but ma#inga personal attac#. &onsensus cannot operate in such anatmosphere. "t's li#ely that anyone who ma#es waves under thesecircumstances will find himself out the door.

"t is the responsibility of all collective members to listen carefullyand consider every matter that is brought to their attention, and to

hear from all sides. (embers should assume that every concern issincere and treat it as such, but, particularly when one person's


14/20

concern involves condemning another individual, everyone in thecollective has to ma#e every effort to get to the bottom of the issuewithout jumping to conclusions. As# %uestions. "nvestigate. Hoo# topossible motives to help you ferret out the truth. $his is almost neverdone. :eople are usually all too happy to jump on a bandwagon ofcharacter assassination and are unli#ely to be dissuaded fromwhatever stance they have chosen.

"n cases of outright nastiness or bullying, it's appropriate for the

collective to help address the behavior +although it still does notmean the offender should be summarily e!pelled. arely, however,does the group come to the defense of an aggrieved member. Aslong as group censure consists of dumping on an unpopular person,especially if it's by e*mail or out of the individual's earshot, thenpeople gleefully jump in. ut when it comes to confronting a bully,then 0 poof 0everyone disappears. 2ven if the bully has been,until that point, generally ac#nowledged as such, when somebodyactually as#s for help in calling her to tas#, suddenly nobodyremembers having had any problems with her.

$oo often, ugly banishments happen because the collective has

no guidelines for dealing with disagreements or dissension. "n theabsence of a grievance procedure or a forum in which differences ofopinion may be openly discussed, the only options for the group areeither trudging along in some unstructured, undefined manner, witheverybody swallowing whatever concerns they may have and silentlysuffering any insults, or forcibly e!pelling whoever brings up aproblem. "n such situations, the promise of inclusion and opennessintrinsic to a consensus*based group has been subverted andnarrowed down to 3hut 1p or Get ut.

3ometimes, however, even when it seems that the right rulesand guidelines are in place, these can be ignored or rendered

useless. 2specially in a smaller group, it is not all that uncommon forthe rules to be overtly disregarded as members decide that thoseregulations are nothing more than technical trivialities. $hus,regardless of the rules, the individual who has been vilified or oustedhas little recourse when the whole small gang +which might call itselfa collective has simply turned against her. Almost inevitably, she willend up giving up the struggle because it just doesn't seem worth it todredge up rules that nobody cares about, simply to remain amongpeople who obviously don't want her around.

2stablished rules can also be easily subverted through the usualtechni%ues of manipulation, as described in other chapters. A group

might earnestly intend to follow the established procedures fore!ploring grievances or granting due process, yet those procedures

3ometimes, moreover, the individual can be really badlymisunderstood by a group which has made assumptions or followedpresumptions that might not really apply to the person involved. "n

judging individuals, groups can ma#e terrible mista#es, sometimesbased on a lot of bias and prejudice. $his is illustrated not only by thecountless collectivist mista#es made throughout history, but also bythe many smaller e!amples of collective injustice and manipulationthat we have already discussed in our &ollective oo#. hen a

group is manipulated, becomes misguided, or simply fails to bevigilant about judging everyone fairly and e%ually, it can becomemore wrong than any single member.

$he individual also might have a particular outloo# or opinion ina given situation that ultimately proves to be wiser or more accuratethan the outloo# of the group. $his is why it really is necessary tolisten to the opinions of individuals within the group who may not begoing so well with the collective flow. issenting opinions sometimescan change the mind of the entire group, once the group considersthe dissenting opinion fairly, allowing each person within that groupto weigh the merits of each +differing point of view.

"n e!amining other literature dealing with problems withincollectives, we have seen %uite a few articles tal#ing about how todeal with the difficult person who won't go along with the group, theornery person, the malcontent whose behavior or opinions seem todisrupt the group's smooth functioning. $he issue is thus usuallydepicted as finding a good way for the group to collectively deal witha problem member. 1nfortunately, this is only one way of loo#ing atthings.

A truly democratic and egalitarian collective can't alwaysassume that the only problem to be considered in group*versus*individual conflicts is protecting the integrity of the group against the

disruptive individual. 3ometimes, the problem involves protecting theindividual against the group.


15/20

The Collective Is Not Al+ays ore Correct ThanThe Individual

ne mista#e often made by people who want to strive for a morecollective society 0 whether that society might be called anarchist,communist, or Ismall*dI democratic 0 is to assume that thecollective can always be trusted above the individual. 1nfortunately,in many radical*left circles, if we tal# too much about individual rights

and even suggest that an individual's opinions and observationsmight be closer to the truth than the votes or consensus of thecollective, we might be accused of pushing Iindividualism,I whichsupposedly is a bad trait typical of capitalist and IbourgeoisI society,not to be tolerated in egalitarian circles. Yet, this #ind of mentality, atleast when ta#en to the e!treme, enabled a lot of really nastytotalitarian societies to e!ist in the past century, and the history ofthose societies basically proves the point that individuals +who weresuppressed can often be more correct than the group.

"f we are really striving for a fair and egalitarian society, then weneed to give utmost importance to the rights and liberties of the

individual. $his does not mean promoting the #ind of IindividualismIthat dictates that each person must loo# out for her8himself and thatcollective decision ma#ing and concern for the community are ahindrance to true liberty. hat it does mean is that each of us isuni%ue and must be considered, judged and observed according toour own uni%ue combination of circumstances. $his means that ourbehaviors are far more comple! than might be assumed by the #nee*

jer# sort of ideologue who would say, for instance, that any of usenjoys certain privileges above others for belonging to one particulargroup based on race, gender, or ethnic origins. "t also means thatnobody's behavior should be judged by a formulaic chec# list, so that

in any given situation, one person must be assumed to have certainpolitically undesirable characteristics based on a particular incidentwhen we don't #now the bac#grounds, tendencies, or histories of theindividuals involved. +3o, for e!ample, a man who shouts at a womanor says something vaguely disrespectful to her is automaticallyassumed to be Ise!istI when a closer e!amination of the histories ofthe individuals involved might reveal a dynamic that is far morecomple!, with more e%ual hostilities, etc., than anyone reali-ed.hen we fail to recogni-e the potential uni%ueness and comple!ity ofthe individual, then we are failing to create a situation in which eachindividual might enjoy a ma!imum amount of freedom and liberty.

will become irrelevant if the whole collective has already beenconvinced of the accused person's guilt. 1nchec#ed binges ofcharacter assassination and rumor mongering can psychologicallynullify many Ifair trialsI before they ever happen.

"ronically, some people use the belief in anarchism as theire!cuse to flagrantly ignore rules that were designed to ensurefairness and democracy. Anarchists who brea# the rules might go onthe defensive by saying that they don't always have to follow the law,

because they are anarchists. Yet, while it may be true that anarchistscan reserve the right to reject laws that they thin# are unjust or arethe product of an unjust system, anarchists must also reach acollective understanding about basic democratic principles.

ules can become very important, not simply because they arethe rules, but because they can serve as guidelines for achievingdemocracy. $hose guidelines might be very much needed duringharsh or comple! conflicts, when people are more easily confused ormisled into forgetting the most basic principles or even basic logic.

:erhaps someday, everyone will have a strong enoughconviction in 0 and #nowledge of 0 true democratic principles never

to be misled +or to do the misleading, for that matter. "n some goldenage, perhaps after the revolution, everybody will be sopsychologically and socially advanced, that it will simply beunthin#able 0 and impossible 0 for them to contribute to thecreation of pariahs or other acts of collective injustice. Yet, in thehere and now, we probably should do everything we can to #eepthose tendencies in chec#.


16/20

Staying True to the ission

(any egalitarian collectives consist of activists wor#ing toachieve a just society and were formed for that purpose. 2vencollectives that don't have specific political aims have made acommitment to social justice by virtue of being anti*authoritarian andpursuing e%uality as a fundamental goal. "t should be obvious thatinternal power plays, deceitful bac#*room plotting, rumor*mongering,

and marginali-ing or ridiculing are behaviors that do not befit a groupfighting for fairness and against oppression. Yet, people in collectivesdo these things all the time, usually without even inviting a raisedeyebrow.

&ollectives that incorporate as non*profits are re%uired by law todraft a mission statement letting potential supporters #now about thewor# that the organi-ation e!ists to achieve. Fulfilling the mission is anon*profit's legal reason for being +as well as the reason it doesn'thave to pay ta!es, just as a for*profit company's all*consumingpurpose in life is to ma#e money for its owners. (ost collectives haveno such mandated re%uirement, but it's still a good idea to compose

a mission statement to refer bac# to whenever a decision needs tobe made on how the group should act in a given situation. $hisposition paper should spell out the fundamental belief that thecollective must operate internally by the same high standards offairness and democracy that it is wor#ing to bring about in the largersociety. "f it fails to do that, then it has failed in its most basic goal.

$here has to be some way for people to be allowed to clear theair when necessary without e!posing themselves to outragedcensure.

Prioritizing

(any collectives have made rules that re%uire facilitators to givepriority to members of traditionally oppressed groups. hile the

intention is commendable, in practice it4s not an easy tas# todetermine which individuals in a particular group are more or lessli#ely to be overloo#ed or silenced. :ower ine%uities within a smallgroup of human beings can stem from a great many factors that arenot easily reduced to race, class, or gender. $hus, anyone whoattempts to combat injustice by applying overly simplistic criteriamight actually perpetuate even more injustice. And many collectives,from what we have seen, need to be more conscious about avoidingthat #ind of mista#e.

"t is important to ma#e sure that those who have been %uiet geta chance to be heard. ut, once again, the rule must not be applied

in the absence of common sense. 2veryone should feel free to say," have no comment,< without being made out to be a deferrer tooppressors. "n addition, people who are directly involved in a givenissue, or are themselves raising a matter for the group to consider,are li#ely to have more to say when it comes up for discussion andmay even be %uestioned by the group to elucidate and clarifyrelevant points. $hey should not be silenced because someone elsehas not said as much on the topic. "t ma#es no sense for someonewho brings up a concern to be prohibited from participating in theensuing discussion simply because he or she has used up theallotted spea#ing time.


17/20

get a word out and have their opinions heard. hile facilitation andhand*raising should prevent this, there will always be circumstanceswhen people are engaging in informal conversations, whether in orout of meetings.

"t4s also fairly normal, in everyday speech, to interrupt someoneto nip a misunderstanding in the bud/ h, no, no. "4m sorry " made itsound that way. hat " meant wasK.< &ollective process needs tota#e ordinary interaction into account, not try to dictate actions that

are aw#ward and artificial, then frown on people who don4timmediately ta#e to them.

Stacking

:rohibiting any and all interruptions can become a problem atmeetings when added to the strict stipulation that members can onlyspea# in the order in which they raise their hands. Eand*raising is agood idea, since it stops people from merely shouting over eachother to be heard, as is ma#ing a list, or stac#, that determineswhose fair turn it is to tal#. Yet, these practices, if applied too rigidly,

can easily stifle discussion or facilitate abuses.For instance, someone may intentionally ma#e grossly untrueand damaging statements about a project in an attempt to denigrateit. $he person who made the original proposal may be desperate tosay something, but he mustn4t interrupt, and there are others in lineto spea#. "f the proposal*ma#er spea#s up for himself out of order hewill, in all li#elihood, be loo#ed at with opprobrium, only adding to thedenigrator4s case that his project is suspect. "f he waits until it4s hisrightful turn to tal#, it may be too late to undo other members4already*solidifying, inaccurate perceptions. "t ma#es no sense to usehand*raising merely to ma#e a list without allowing for the fact that

discussions re%uire an e!change. hen %uestions go unanswered orfalsehoods unchallenged, there can be no discourse.hat often happens is that someone will raise his hand to

respond to something that has just been said; by the time it is histurn to spea# there may have been another ten comments made onother matters, and what the person had raised his hand to say is nolonger on point. 3ince it will be his only chance to tal#, however, hewill still ta#e his turn. (ultiply this by the number of people in themeeting, and you have a random list of utterances on various topicsand no semblance of a discussion.

$he door is opened to speech*ma#ing by the self*important while

the mee# or shy may only get a few words out and not receiveanother opportunity to e!plain themselves more fully.

Res!ect for "ifferences

(any collectives are aware that they need to do better in addressingracism, se!ism, and homophobia within their own ran#s, but toomany fail to address the reality that lac# of respect for differencesdoes not start with its ugliest and most glaring manifestations but ispresent whenever room is not made for another person4s viewpoint,situation, or life e!perience.

:rejudice does not come in separate compartments. "t4s noto#ay to be against racism, se!ism, and homophobia but beindifferent to !enophobia, ageism, nationalism, classism and themyriad other ways that people are suspicious of and discriminatorytoward one another.

$he hand*wringing and self*blame that collectives engage in asan attempt to address their own internal problems with insensitivityare unli#ely to yield useful results. $olerance begins with theac#nowledgement that people other than ourselves may see thingsdifferently than we do, and suspending judgment while those withwhom we may disagree or whose point of view we may not

understand are given a forum to e!plain their perspective and areactively listened to. )o one can presume to #now how someone4s lifehas shaped him or her. Group dynamics fail to respect differenceswhenever assumptions are made about another person.

&ollectives that are built around a particular issue are often %uitehomogenous. (embers would li#e to embrace differences, in theory,but when they4re actually confronted with someone whose life isunli#e theirs, many find it difficult to see beyond their own limitede!perience. A dissimilarity as slight as an aw#ward social manner,imperfect language s#ills, or a reticent personality can be enough tocast someone as weird or tiresome, and her opinions therefore pre*

judged as unimportant. hen we do poorly even at acceptingpersonal differences and %uir#s, how can we e!pect to reach out toone another across broader differences that arise from race,ethnicity, class, se!ual orientation, and genderD

"n a collective that is, for e!ample, made up primarily of collegestudents or recent graduates, an older person with a family to ta#ecare of can be shut out of the group4s wor# simply by schedulingmeetings at night, when he has to be home to put the children tobed. (embers4 disabilities are also often unac#nowledged by healthypeople/ it4s hard to put oneself in someone else4s shoes and reali-e itmay be hard for a person to attend regular planning for events or

wor# late hours. hen a member cannot contribute fully to a group4sactivities, he may be left out merely due to careless disregard for his


18/20

difficulties/ ell, you weren4t there so we decided to do it this way.

collective process overcoming power

Documents