From: http://lgp.social-ecology.org/issues/lgp14.html
Policy Statement #2: On Consensus
by Janet Biehl
The Green movement in the United States is committed to two goals that
often
conflict with each other. On the one hand, it is committed to a
diversity of
views among its members; on the other, it is committed to consensus by
large
groups of people who do not know each other. These two goals are often
thrown in opposition to each other.
Small groups, in which people know each other and understand each
other's
views, may be extremely appropriate for consensus. Many small groups
come
together precisely because they agree on certain fundamental issues. In
these groups, consensus may be a de facto aspect of the decision-making
process.
But in large groups of people who do not know each other, the ideal of
consensus is simply that--an ideal. The fact is that there can rarely
be
"one mind" on all issues. The notion that there can be "one mind" in
large
groups is usually a fallacy, belied even by the Green commitment to
valuing
diversity. As the social ecology-deep ecology debate has shown, there
in
fact exists a diversity of approaches to the problem of how to bring
about
an ecological society.
In large groups, a commitment to consensus, while seemingly attractive,
can
be used to discourage independent, critical thinking by individuals. It
lionizes "group wisdom" without acknowledging that the conscientious
and
principled opposition of a few who have the courage to stand up to a
group
decision is to be particularly valued. Indeed, that very independent
thinking and that very courage should be cultivated, not discouraged,
in an
era when conflict is seen as a form of violence and argument is seen as
"divisiveness."
The history of the Green movement in the United States reveals that the
use
of consensus in large groups has too often been immobilizing. Consensus
has
given minorities the right to veto decisions made by the majority of a
group. As a result, many Green meetings have been stymied by the fact
that a
few members oppose a decision with which the majority agree.
Nor is consensus necessarily in accordance with the ideal of radical,
participatory democracy. For under consensus, once a group has taken a
decision, all are in theory to participate in the execution of that
decision. This means that under consensus, minorities are often
deprived of
the legitimate right to dissent--and they are deprived of the
institutional
structures that allow them that right to dissent. Historically under
the
consensus process, dissenting minorities have sometimes been subjected
to
intimidation by informal elites. When the right to dissent is denied,
the
suppression of the principled opposition of a minority may be the
result.
Consensus, however grand its ideal, in reality often makes possible the
tyranny of powerful informal cliques, even if a clique and its tyranny
are
unacknowledged by other members of the group. The history of
alternative
social movements, notably the Clamshell Alliance, demonstrates that
consensus can become a catchword for the intimidation of those who
disagree.
When dissent is denied, the achievement of consensus becomes
empty--simply
an exercise in ritual bonding (as Howard Hawkins has put it)
perpetrated by
the majority. In these cases, consensus represents a commitment to the
unity
of the group itself instead of a commitment to an understanding of the
truth
of a particular issue.
Disagreement is not a form of warfare, nor a form of violence.
Argumentation
is not a form of oppression. Truth and clarity reside in the interests
of
the oppressed, not in the interests of those in power. Attempts to
stymie
discussion only support the ruling order.
Dissent must therefore be encouraged, not discouraged. Only through a
principled discussion of what is at stake in an issue can the truth be
clarified. It is liberals--those who accept the system--who water down
and
obscure truths to platitudes with which everyone can agree and who seek
consensus in the form of "peace." In an age of accommodation like
ours--as
in all ages--it is liberals who would deny the importance of clarifying
radical truths.
Majority rule is the democratic method of determining the will of the
large
group in decision-making. For majority rule protects the minority's
right to
dissent, and majority rule exempts them from the obligation to carry
out a
group decision with which they disagree. In order for diversity of
opinion
to be valued, therefore, majority rule in large groups must be viewed
as an
acceptable process.
---------------------------
Back to Collective Book Links Page
Back to Collective Book Home Page