Note: This was a take-home worksheet distributed at the NCOR workshop we presented on January 26, 2003.
For a printer-friendly view, click here.
|
Workshop: “Is this What Consensus Looks Like?” |
|
I. What is Consensus? Consensus is not, at its core, a form of voting on decisions, which is the way it’s usually regarded. It is a way of organizing how a group of people functions, so that every person in the group has an equal ability to participate and be heard, as well as make decisions. Tolerance People cannot participate equally if they are not free to be and express themselves; therefore, at the heart of consensus is the need for fairness, tolerance, openness, and acceptance. A group that demands conformity or blind allegiance of its members is not, by definition, operating by consensus. The premise of consensus and equality rests firmly on the belief that everyone in the group is valued and necessary to maintain the integrity of the whole. A group that does not tolerate members who are different, whether in background, personal style, or ideology, and expels or marginalizes them is not operating by consensus. Power A group in which a person or faction exerts more influence over the group and therefore has an unequal amount of power is not operating by consensus, which demands equality at its core. We will discuss the various ways in which power can become concentrated in one faction or individual. A basic tenet of consensus is that power must be equal among all members in order for everyone to be able to genuinely participate without being cowed into submission or fear of ridicule or reprisals. Cruelty Treating one another with basic human decency, kindness, and compassion is integral to the consensus process. Where there is fear or distrust, which is bred by intimidation and secrecy, people cannot feel free to speak and participate freely. Some groups may have no patience for tending to the weak and the whiny. Any group can choose that path, but it can no longer call itself consensus-based nor egalitarian. Despotism by the collective, which rests on groupthink, whereby everybody has to agree, no one can dissent, and those who dissent or who simply are not well liked are outta here, does not equal consensus. ACTIVITY: Make a list of the types of interpersonal dynamics, attitudes, and behaviors which are incompatible with consensus, and the ones that are. Be prepared to defend your choices. You might find that after discussion, some of your choices will want to switch sides. |
|
II. Power-sharing In any group, there will always be people who are more knowledgeable, more experienced, more outspoken, or better able to toot their own horn. When the rest of the group defers to such individuals, instead of insisting on equal access to information, training for those less knowledgeable, and task rotation, a power elite forms. An Elite Those who make up the power elite may have gotten there unintentionally: some people are just busybodies who naturally take on tasks and “leadership” roles: they see a need and fill it. At other times, power-hungry people may deliberately take on the lion’s share of the administrative tasks and leave others out of the loop as a means to consolidate power within their own clique. It could be because they think they know best or because they just like power. Steps to Take Regardless of how or why a ruling elite has formed, the collective’s reaction should be the same: demand equal participation. Some steps to take: 1. Stay involved. Attend meetings whenever you can. Encourage others to attend. Make the minutes public and tell people who did not attend what was discussed. Help draft the agenda to address concerns you feel are important. Speak up at meetings. 2. Stay vigilant. Be aware of power inequities within your group and suggest concrete ways to correct them. (For instance: Since A. has been bookkeeper for two years now, I propose s/he begin training another volunteer to take over that role. Or: Let’s hold regular training workshops for the various jobs needed to run our group.) 3. Stay informed. Ask questions. Ask how something was arrived at if it happened before you joined the group. Ask to be trained in various tasks. Volunteer to help with tasks you would like to know more about. Responsibilities of the Collective Just as those who hoard information and exert influence are guilty of creating power inequities, so are the apathetic members who lose interest in how the group works and allow power to be wrested from them. (Cautionary note: In my personal experience, simply following the advice of steps 1, 2, and 3, above, was threatening enough to the power elite that they (he) launched a vicious hate campaign against me. If you’re going to be a whistle blower, be prepared for the absolute worst.) ACTIVITY: make a list of all the ways in which unequal power can express itself in a collective; pay particular attention to examples you have witnessed in your own groups. |
|
III. Manipulation Egalitarian collectives are particularly vulnerable to manipulation because we don’t expect it. Yet it can take the same form as with sleazy salesmen: manipulators earn your trust with empathy for your concerns, convince you that they are on your side, let you know the dire consequences of not following their advice, subtly let you see how hurt and disappointed they will be if you don’t follow their advice, then they pounce. Most of us would never suspect a fellow collective member when they appeal to us to help them get rid of a troublesome person, or when they seem hurt or upset that something is not getting done, subtly imploring us to take care of it for them. Being skeptical is not the same as being distrustful or suspicious. It simply means not jumping to conclusions, neither positive nor negative, before having investigated an issue. We know that making a hasty negative judgement of another person is bad and unfair, but so is a hasty positive judgement: we might be so wowed by someone that we let them push us around or influence us to do or think the wrong thing. We are usually eager to help, as we should. But a little skepticism goes a very long way toward ensuring fairness and justice in any situation. Take the time to ferret out the truth. Hear from all sides. Use your own deductive reasoning: ask yourself what reason someone might have to be pushing for a certain outcome over another. ACTIVITY: make a list of all the ways in which a person in a collective might successfully use manipulation to influence others to do or believe what s/he says; pay particular attention to examples you yourself have witnessed. (Refer to “Ploys to Subvert Consensus”) |
|
IV. There’s Hope It is our belief and hope that virtually all problems in collectives can be overcome by applying compassion, tolerance, and patience, and by being thorough and even-handed in our thinking. If we care, genuinely, about mutuality and inclusion, if we believe this to be one of the basic reasons why we want to work for a better, more just world, then we need to care about and respect one another. We need to always keep referring back to what’s important when striving to make decisions on how to proceed, especially in a difficult or trying situation. |
|
V. Creating Pariahs This issue will probably form the bulk of this workshop, both because it is very important (it is the most glaring way in which the activist community fails in its quest to bring about greater justice and compassion in the world), and because it is an emotionally charged topic about which many of us might have something to say. Please keep in mind that the goal here is to recognize and expose common patterns of dysfunctional collective behavior. Though we want to hear and talk about everybody’s individual stories, let us focus on what those experiences have in common and what all of us can learn from them, particularly in trying to understand the underlying group dynamics. ACTIVITY AND DISCUSSION QUESTIONS: 1. When is banning justified? --when the person is a danger to others? (define) --when the person interferes with the work of the group? (define interference) --when the person is not a good fit for the organization? (annoying, sexual harasser, bossy, paranoid, know-it-all, right-winger…) --when somebody is made uncomfortable by that person? 2. What are the behaviors that the collective should accept? 3. Define banning and its parameters (when it should happen). 4. What is the proper procedure to decide on banning someone? --if someone complains, that’s enough reason? --if many people complain, that’s enough reason? --if “everybody” complains, that’s enough reason? 5. Should there be some kind of process of collecting evidence? 6. Should the person who is supposed to be banned be consulted? 7. Should there be an open forum where the accused can speak for him/herself? 8. Should there be some kind of “trial?” --define the parameters --what is the proper venue, judge, jury? 9.Define due process. 10. What should happen before a banning even gets put on the agenda? --talk to the person openly? (pros and cons) --have a meeting without the person present? (pros and cons) --conduct a grievance procedure, conflict resolution, mediation? (pros and cons) 11. What systems should the collective have in place to possibly nip the need for bannings in the bud? --grievance procedure? --conflict resolution and mediation procedures? --a mission statement that reminds everyone of the group’s reason for being (and thus informs whether a banning is even an appropriate action for the group to take? 12. Is there ever a true, unavoidable reason to ban? 13. In bannings you have witnessed: --do you feel it was the only possible recourse? What other avenues do you think could have been tried, if any? --was there an open process followed where the person being banned had a chance to explain and defend him/herself? --were allegations proven or did people mostly make up their minds based on rumors? --did the person ever return to the group? 14. Discuss broader issues, like the need to model the more just society that we hope to bring about through our activism. How is it served by kicking people out of our groups? 15. Are there any necessary evils, or just evils that we want to believe are necessary so we can justify our participation in them? ACTIVITIES: 1. List all the ways in which someone can be different and as a result possibly misunderstood or disliked by the group. 2. List all the times you heard something negative about someone and assumed it to be true, perhaps because the person telling you was a friend. 3. Make a list of your group’s priorities. First list them randomly, as they occur to you, then try to put them in order of importance. 4. Make a list of the problems you see in your group and the solutions you’d like to see. First list the perfect solutions, the ones that would happen in an ideal world, then list the ones you think you could actually help implement. |
|
VI. Some Solutions Unfortunately, first hand knowledge of solutions is not our strong suit. We are mainly experts in dysfunction and painful character assassinations. However, we strongly recommend that groups have a set of procedures in place to deal with problems when they will, inevitably, crop up: At the very least, every collective needs the following: 1. A statement of guiding principles or mission. This should form the basis to inform all other decisions. It should include the group’s most fundamental beliefs, including its commitment to justice, fairness, compassion, and tolerance, including of the mistakes and differences in personal style among its own members. Possibly, it should include a statement against intentional cruelty, manipulation, and grandstanding, with the stipulation that no infraction is unforgivable if the person tries sincerely to make amends. It might be a good idea to state here that we will follow due process in dealing with every grievance, conflict, or point of contention. 2. A grievance procedure. Grievances are slightly different from requests for conflict resolution since there may only be one side who perceives a problem. It is imperative that grievances be heard by an unbiased, outside observer, or a panel made up of people WHO ARE NOT MEMBERS OF THE COLLECTIVE WHERE THE PROBLEM ORIGINATED. 3. A conflict resolution procedure. DISCUSSION: 1. What successful solutions to problems have you seen in groups you were or are a part of? ACTIVITIES: 1. Write your ideal mission statement, then revise it to a version you think others in your group could accept. Discuss your statement with others to see what you might want to add or subtract or clarify. 2. Write out a grievance procedure your group could adopt. Start by brainstorming ideas, then make a list of the most important points, then make it into a workable process. 3. Same as 2 but re: conflict resolution. |