Often, there is not enough clarity among members
of egalitarian collectives regarding how consensus is
supposed to work. Because the individuals involved do not know exactly
what to do, there is inaction and frustration, leaving the door wide
open for someone or some small cabal to rush in like a
knight in shining armor and rescue the collective by taking charge.
A number of people whom we've spoken to about the difficulties
of consensus are not concerned with power inequities, which they do not
see
as a particular problem of their own group, but with slow
meetings and fruitless discussions of trivialities; not
knowing who is supposed to do what or how to delegate
functions; and, in the end, either things not getting
done or only one or two people doing all the work.
People get tired of waiting around for every issue to
come out into the open and get thoroughly discussed at
meetings. A lot of the time the meetings aren't even
held, or the people who have an interest in the
particular matter don't show up, or not enough people
show up, which means the discussion has to be
postponed once again. Sometimes it simply seems easier
to allow decisions to be made by a few, even
without asking the rest of the group--at least that
way, things get done. These common problems, however,
create a fertile ground for an authoritarian to take
over, to bring order and function to the
group--often to everyone's relief and gratitude.
When that happens, there has been a serious breakdown
of consensus and basic egalitarian principles. There
may be one of two dynamics underlying this phenomenon
(or, possibly, both occurring at once and reinforcing each
other): either someone is manipulating the group to
grab power for himself or his little clique (which he might even be
doing
unconsciously -- some people just have bossiness and leadership in
their
blood); or many (maybe all) of the group's members are afraid to take
responsibility for making decisions and doing the work
that is needed to move the group forward. When everyone waits for
someone
else to decide what to do, nothing happens. The result is
recriminations and
mutual resentment, which can destroy a group. In
consensus, there are no leaders to light a fire under
your collective butt: everyone has to be his and her
own motivator, initiator and carry-through-ator.
Common Misunderstandings of Consensus
The most fundamental misunderstanding of consensus is
that everybody has to agree. There is often a lot of
pressure not to express any disagreements or
reservations so as not to appear uncooperative.
Proposals pass simply because no one dares to raise an
objection. That is not consensus. What should happen,
in a nutshell, is that someone makes a proposal,
people ask for explanation and clarification, the
merits of the proposal are discussed, and maybe small
amendments are made as the discussion proceeds. The
final version of the proposal is brought to a vote.
(Yes, you still vote in consensus. The difference with
majority voting is that in consensus everyone has to
vote for something in order for it to pass. We find that actually
taking the
time to vote makes it clear what people's wishes are, rather
than assuming consent if all just keep silent.) If
everyone agrees to the proposal as is, it passes. If
someone has objections or reservations, the proposal
needs to be amended in such a way that it will meet
the concerns raised. The crucial element is to ask the
person objecting to explain what he or she objects to
so that the group can find a solution for which everyone will give
their
consent.
Many groups fall into a quagmire of disorganization
because they feel that creating a structure for
getting things done is somehow authoritarian,
especially if it is accomplished primarily by one
person. Not so. As long as all actions are
transparent and everyone is given a chance to question
them, to voice their concerns and see them addressed,
and as long as decisions are put to a vote by which everyone consents
to
them, initiatives that are the brainchild of one person are perfectly
acceptable. It's okay for someone who has a knack for keeping
things in order to create a schedule, for instance, or
a file of useful addresses, as long as she brings it
to the group for approval. The thing to look out for
is covert intimidation, e.g., if someone acts all hurt if
everybody does not show unmitigated appreciation for
her efforts by rubber-stamping whatever she wants to
do. And a lack of transparency is also a major red
flag: any information that anyone has put together
must always be available to the entire collective, and
any action a member undertakes on the collective's
behalf must be with the collective's knowledge and
approval.
On the other hand, when there are small decisions to be made that do
not
relate to fundamental principles, it's perfectly OK to delegate them to
an
appropriate committee. For instance, if a planning committee receives
general approval from the collective on how much to spend for an event,
that
committee does not have to get a vote from the whole collective on
every
type of supply it wishes to order. Nonetheless, it does have to present
a
list of expenditures and revenues after the fact.
Skill-sharing
Another reason things sometimes get bogged down in
inactivity is inadequate skill-sharing. Tasks like
organizing an event, planning the group's activities,
figuring out how to pay for things, and doing outreach
all require skills that should be learned by working
with someone who already has some experience. "Skills" are not just manual
abilities like sewing, woodworking, or cooking.
Organizational, technological, and interpersonal skills
also must be shared and learned.
Sometimes consensus-based collectives assume that
because everyone in the group is equal, everyone can
be counted on to autonomously take over any and all
tasks without any prior knowledge and without any
assistance. There is often a misconception of what “autonomy” and “DIY” stand for, which can lead to the belief that everyone should be able to work independently, without ever asking for advice from someone more knowledgeable or experienced. The whole idea that some people may be more experienced than others is looked on as suspect. Indeed, even offering guidance may be seen as
paternalistic and hierarchical. That point of view is healthy in some respects, since no one should be looked at as being somehow more important, nor should anyone’s opinions carry more weight, but it is self-defeating when it leads to denying or ignoring reality. It doesn’t make sense for members with no experience to be left on their own to take on responsibilities that are completely new to them. The result is general frustration among members because things are not getting done or getting done poorly, feelings of anxiety and guilt among individuals for having rashly volunteered to take on a project that one is not actually able to bring to fruition, and the all-too-common result that the usual suspects take over and save the day. Or the group’s hopeful efforts get lost in mediocrity and ineffectualness.
Clarity is the antidote to muddling through. If a group spells out as clearly as possible how things will be accomplished and through whom the necessary skills will be passed down, a lot of problems that can eventually lead to power struggles in the collective will be avoided. We have actually seen groups in which the more senior members scoffed at the idea of training newer members, claiming they had no time to waste on babysitting. That is a blazing red flag that neither consensus nor the most basic notion of egalitarianism are operating in the group!