Sometimes, two people caught up in a personal and emotional kind of war
will
insist on dragging the whole collective into their squabble, each (or
sometimes only one) person demanding that the group censure the other. The
person who has greater power within the group, a stronger personality, or
the ability to make the best case for being the most aggrieved might then
very well succeed in gathering an indignant, angry mob to rally against the
other party.
It is sometimes helpful for a small number of collective members,
perhaps
one to three, to intervene as intermediaries between the warring
parties and
help them find an appropriate means to resolve the conflict, at least
to an
extent that will allow them to continue functioning as collective
members.
For instance, it may be useful to find neutral mediators outside the
group.
But it is altogether inconsistent with the spirit of consensus and
egalitarianism, which presupposes equal respect for each individual and
his
or her contribution to the group, for the collective to act as judge
and
jury (or bloodthirsty villagers carrying torches) in a situation that
is
emotionally painful for those involved and about which the collective
cannot
and should not know all the details.
Public conflict resolution, while certainly a better alternative than
jumping to collective conclusions and decisions based on rumors and
innuendo, puts the parties in the embarrassing position of having to
explain
private choices (of which they may not be particularly proud) in front
of
everybody. This tactic is likely only to lead to defensiveness,
refusal to
yield one's ground for fear of losing face, and further hurt
feelings.
A collective may come up with the argument that internal disputes harm
the
image of the group to potential outside supporters and must therefore
be
suppressed by distancing one of the parties from its activities. Yet,
this
idea is highly authoritarian, and it is likely to do greater damage to
the
collective by breaking it apart rather than working to bring it
together.
Moreover, it leads us to the logical conclusion that the best way to
preserve harmony in the group is simply not to tolerate
conflict.
A converse sort of problem also occurs fairly often: Someone raises a
legitimate grievance about the inappropriate way another member is
conducting herself within the sphere of the collective's activities,
then
finds himself being accused of bringing the complaint up to the
collective
merely because of a personal dislike.
This instance involves an abuse of the collective process, usually by a
self-appointed leader who does not wish to answer for her actions--who
will
therefore seek to distract from any criticism by claiming that the
complainant has a personal problem rather than a legitimate concern.
And
soon, the poor soul who had the audacity to call the leader to task
might
find himself slandered, vilified, or attacked with verbal invectives
meant
to frighten him into submission.
At this point, some well-meaning collective members might respond to
all the
interpersonal tension by urging everyone to chill. They might even
spout a
bunch of well-meaning platitudes such as, "What's important is the
group's
work" (which should not be sidelined by "petty bickering," of course).
And
to uninformed passersby, this might seem like a good assessment, a
reasonable answer given in the interest of peace. In truth, however,
such a
reaction is simply callous and insensitive. It's symptomatic of the
kind of
thoughtlessness that results when gullible people allow their leader to
manipulate them. (Although, that's not to say that it can't also
sometimes
be used as a deliberate tactic as well...)
We believe that in this kind of situation, the collective must simply
encourage the dissenter to speak up. The group should not allow a
dissenting
opinion to be stifled simply so that they can avoid further conflict.
That
is a false kind of peace, a perpetuation of injustice that does not
suit a
group that's (supposedly) seeking to create a more democratic
society.