Booklet Three: Some Solutions?

Codifying the Collective Process

It’s clearly too late to try to decide what would be a fair way of resolving an issue once the shit has already hit the fan. Whenever there’s a problem within a collective, whether it’s an interpersonal conflict or back-and-forth accusations of wrongdoing, emotions tend to run high. This is not the time to decide on proper procedures. When people are already angry at someone, they’re often all too happy to just let the person(s) fry, process be damned. That’s why it’s paramount that the collective have a set of procedural guidelines in place that can be called into play when difficulties 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.

Ideally, the mission statement should not be too prescriptive or narrow. For instance, including statements like “All members will treat each other with respect at all times” may sound good on its face but doesn’t take into account the reality that people may sometimes lose their temper or their patience and should not, as a result, have to face the accusation of having violated a basic tenet.

On the other hand, a guiding statement should include the seemingly obvious, since in times of crisis common sense and common decency often tend to be among the first casualties. For instance, it might be useful to overtly state that the group strives to model a more just society through its own actions and therefore supports kindness, fairness, and compassion while condemning intentional cruelty, underhandedness and manipulation.

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. We cannot stress this enough. In a small group it’s extraordinarily easy for rumors to spread quickly and biased opinions to solidify instantly.

We recommend that a collective establish a grievance committee, whose job it is to maintain a contact list of outside volunteers who can be called in when needed. The committee also agrees to follow the group’s previously agreed-upon protocol whenever a grievance is brought to its attention by any member, regardless of the committee’s personal opinions about the member in question.

(More to come.)

Some Cardinal Points to Keep in Mind When Conflict Arises in a Group

1. Do not draw any conclusions about an issue without hearing from both sides. Hear each side out to the extent that each feels is necessary (i.e. don't assume you've heard enough just because someone seems tiresome, pedantic, or emotional). Talking to a friend of a person involved in a conflict is not the same as getting the lowdown straight from the horse's mouth.

2. Although you may feel it is your duty to throw your support behind a friend or close ally who is in distress, giving emotional support is possible--and desirable--without having to draw conclusions or take sides.

3. Corollary to #2. Regardless of who you believe is right or wrong on a given issue, give emotional support. It is not okay for the feelings of the people involved to be trampled on, especially if someone is clearly suffering, even when one or both of the parties are acting like jerks. It is especially not okay to jump in and join the faction doing the stomping on someone's hurt feelings.

4. Assume that every concern is legitimate and address its substance, even if the tone or context in which it is delivered seems overblown, emotional, or vindictive.

5. Corollary to #4. Do not dismiss concerns just because the manner in which they are brought up seems strident or out of place. It is one of the shameful practices of the adversarial court system, which we don't want to emulate in our own collectives (at least not in this respect), to discredit complainants who are emotional or enraged. For centuries, women's grievances, in particular, have been successfully shunted aside by overbearing men by claiming that a woman who is outraged to the breaking point by the injustices and abuses she has had to suffer is hysterical. (Keep in mind that men can be very emotional too, and just as readily dismissed for being so.)

6. Never assume that someone who is raising a concern is just wasting the group's time. (That can happen, of course, but, at worst, the outcome of such a situation will simply be a certain amount of time wasted.) Much more often, someone who feels threatened by the concern raised will try to persuade the group to squelch it on the grounds that it is a time-waster.

7. If a concern is in fact taking up too much of the group's time, create a subcommittee to look into it. The subcommittee should include the person raising the concern and at least three other people who are neutral or uninvolved in the issue but who are willing to take the time to ferret out the facts and study them thoroughly.

8. Sometimes someone (or a group) can be so controlling or self-involved (often without even realizing it) that he sees any disagreement with his chosen course as sabotage or disruption and will react angrily to what he sees as an unnecessary obstacle being created. This is a very common source of conflict in collectives. The solution is to treat every concern that is raised as legitimate and to address it as such. There are often fundamental differences in the basic values or beliefs of group members that get swept under the rug in a flurry of angry accusations and are only brought to an end by driving out or expelling the weaker faction or individual. This is a terrible breakdown of collectivism and should never be viewed as a successful resolution to a conflict.

9. Be the solution. Volunteer to create a committee to look into a problem and, after thorough study, recommend solutions. Volunteer to seek outside mediators. Talk to both sides to try to understand each point of view.

10. Instead of listening to empty accusations, look for plausible motives for people's behavior. When someone is accused of acting a certain way because he is "crazy," that just does not hold any water. People usually act badly either because they are upset, insecure, frustrated, or afraid, or because they have something to gain by that behavior. Why would someone who has nothing to gain go around sabotaging or undermining the group's work? Could it be that they in fact have a legitimate concern they feel needs to be raised and are only being painted as saboteurs by someone who in fact has something to gain (such as consolidating his own power) by shutting them up?

11. A solution to a conflict does not have to--and should not--assign blame nor declare a victor. When conflicts arise, emotions often run high. People who feel they have been wronged or mistreated can react badly. Often, one side (or both) has become so overwrought by the conflict that she does not want to resolve the problem but merely crush the perceived offender. It is necessary to create an atmosphere where both sides can come back to the group relatively whole; that can only happen when all the issues have been thoroughly addressed and resolved to an extent that both parties can live with.

12. Not assigning blame does not mean not acknowledging the wrongs that have been visited on either side. When people are not made to feel that they are under attack, but that their concerns will be genuinely listened to, they are much more likely to admit their mistakes. Create a means for people who may have acted badly to make amends, so that everybody can move on. (But do not be the judge and jury. People can only honestly make amends for errors that they acknowledge. No one can be forced to admit she was wrong if she does not in fact believe it. It may be that someone who is adamant in her position is in fact correct in her claim that she has been unjustly vilified. A situation that is still in this stage has not been thoroughly dealt with yet.)

13. A conflict between two people who were previously close friends or have been involved in a romantic relationship should never result in the group taking sides against one or the other party. The facts of the conflict that involve the group as a whole should be addressed as such (i.e. s/he has been excluding me from activities; badmouthing me within the group; will not leave me alone when I am doing work for the group, etc.). The group should absolutely not become complicit in eliminating the former friend or partner from the complainant's life by driving him or her out of the collective. It should become especially obvious in such a case why assigning blame is fruitless: people who have been hurt sometimes do stupid or cruel things. There's no need to rub their faces in it.

14. People become involved in conflicts because they have some unaddressed need. Find out what the need is and determine a way to address it, with the collaboration of those who are in disagreement. That is the only way to resolve the conflict: it needs to be addressed, worked through, and straightened out.

15. Anytime someone is kicked out of the group or leaves voluntarily in order to stop a painful conflict, there has been a terrible breakdown, not a conflict resolution.

Relinquishing Control of Projects and People

Egalitarian groups afford very little opportunity to control others or the group itself. Because there are no leaders, no one is in a position to force another person to act or refrain from acting in a given situation; only the collective as a whole can intervene to limit unprincipled behavior. Since the entire collective has to become involved in order to restrict someone’s autonomy, such a measure should only be undertaken if the behavior in question is extreme. There is no mechanism in an egalitarian group for individuals or the group to try to control anything but the most egregious misconduct of other members. (We have seen many instances in which small gaffes are trumped up into serious charges as a way of exercising control, but that’s another topic.) Any other behavior, from maddening quirks to stupid ideas, as galling as this may seem at times, has to simply be allowed to exist.

Attempting to force a desired outcome when it comes to matters of personal choice, taste, or style is out of keeping with the principles of maximum autonomy and free choice, and it can only lead to arguments and ruffled feelings. (The corollary to this is that group members have a profound responsibility not to make themselves a nuisance to others. ) The overall result is a group that is not smooth or harmonious, though it may be loving and collegial, but highly heterogeneous, rife with rough spots and bumps.

In an egalitarian group, not everybody has to agree or like each other or approve of the work that is being done; they merely have to consent to it. This means that unless something is really important or central to the values of the organization, the wisest course is often to just let it be. That can be hard to accept when we have been accustomed to value results over all other considerations.

Almost all of us who come to the movement for social justice were brought up and have been functioning in conventional society, which presupposes supremacy of one person over another according to status or perceived superior ability. Whether we mean to or not, we bring these biases and expectations with us when we agree to join groups that operate according to equality and collectivism.

Those of us who are accustomed to emerging as natural leaders (for instance, those who've been successful in academia) may have an unacknowledged belief that others will readily recognize our wisdom and defer to it as a matter of course. We may assume that, equality or not, the opinions of people who have distinguished themselves in some way will naturally carry more weight. Or we may become concerned that the outcome of the group's work will not be of the high caliber that we ourselves feel capable of producing. Others of us may readily accede to individuals who seem knowledgeable and capable of taking on challenging problems and may even frown on those who don't allow themselves to be molded, further alienating individuals who challenge the leadership.

Many conflicts arise out of the desire to control other people's behavior and to control the output of the group's activities. Whenever an attempt is made to manage or direct another member of the group, no matter how well meaning (to preserve harmony, end disruption, make time to tend to the work of the group, ensure high quality, etc.), that person will inevitably feel resentful, and possibly very hurt or angry. If he or she reacts, conflict begins. Many conflicts that drag down collectives for months, and oftentimes result in indelible feuds being created, could be prevented simply by everyone accepting the fact of different approaches among members and allowing them to coexist, regardless of whether everyone agrees with every position or strategy, and objecting only if a fundamental principle is at stake.

The end result of a project that has been produced collectively is an uneven patchwork of viewpoints and ability levels. Making room for everybody to give their input, even when ability is not equal, is a strength, not a weakness; so is letting the process show. We are accustomed to valuing a slick, polished presentation, but letting the seams show empowers others with information of how something was put together. Accepting a heterogeneous, bumpy outcome as a given, before the work even begins, will avoid a lot of head-butting along the way.

Because consensus and equality presuppose mutual trust and a shared sense of mission, many of us may expect solidarity, harmony, and loving kindness to permeate such groups. On the contrary, adhering to egalitarian, anti-authoritarian principles means applying minimal interference to one another, or letting people be who they are, including the annoying, the trying, and the obnoxious. And letting outcomes be as they may.

Staying True to the Mission

Many egalitarian collectives consist of activists working to achieve a just society and were formed for that purpose. Even collectives that don't have specific political aims have made a commitment to social justice by virtue of being anti-authoritarian and pursuing equality as a fundamental goal. It should be obvious that internal power plays, deceitful back-room plotting, rumor-mongering, and marginalizing or ridiculing are behaviors that do not befit a group fighting for fairness and against oppression. Yet, people in collectives do these things all the time, usually without even inviting a raised eyebrow.

Collectives that incorporate as non-profits are required by law to draft a mission statement letting potential supporters know about the work that the organization exists to achieve. Fulfilling the mission is a non-profit's legal reason for being (as well as the reason it doesn't have to pay taxes), just as a for-profit company's all-consuming purpose in life is to make money for its owners. Most collectives have no such mandated requirement, but it's still a good idea to compose a mission statement to refer back to whenever a decision needs to be made on how the group should act in a given situation. This position paper should spell out the fundamental belief that the collective must operate internally by the same high standards of fairness and democracy that it is working to bring about in the larger society. If it fails to do that, then it has failed in its most basic goal.

What’s a Lone Person to Do?

If you’re reading this book because you see a problem in your collective that you think should be addressed, you may well be alone in your quest. If you’ve actually raised your concerns with the group, you may suddenly find yourself the outcast, with the rest of the members possibly either openly hostile or utterly indifferent.

It’s all well and good to say that all the people in a collective need to take responsibility for the group’s functioning in order to avoid power inequalities and ensure a true spirit of consensus and collectivity, but if you’re just one person, and the group is in fact not taking responsibility and is allowing a self-appointed leader or faction to steer decisions (including the newly-arrived-at conclusion that perhaps you are no longer a valued or wanted member), what can you alone do?

We wish we had the answer. (Our own personal solution has been to stagger away, blinded by pain, to tend to our wounds in a dark corner, wondering what hit us and why. We also decided to write a book on collective process.) This chapter is more than anything a cautionary note. Because you have read the contents of this book (and hopefully a number of others) on the topic of collective function and dysfunction, you may consider yourself armed with an arsenal of information and insight on what is going wrong with your group. You may feel confident that you can make a good case to the membership for the need for self-analysis and reassessment of priorities. But that doesn’t mean you won’t still find yourself alone and the subject of attacks and slander.

Evidence from books is very unconvincing to people who won‘t make an effort to try to understand the situation or the underlying problems, and even less so to anyone who has already reached a conclusion based on rumors, speculation, and innuendos. There is a saying, which unfortunately is all too often appropriate in collectives that are experiencing conflict: “My mind is made up, don’t bother me with facts.”

In many cases, people who feel they have carved out their little corner of power are not going to give it up easily, no matter how trivial their sphere of influence may seem. If you threaten the hegemony of someone in a position of some authority, whether his leadership is overt or subtle, (or even if you haven’t done anything that could be construed as a threat but he thinks there’s the potential that you might, perhaps because you‘ve been outspoken) you may very well see another side of him, one with bared teeth and hissing.

It has been suggested that rather than going it alone one should set out to build a coalition, persuading each person individually, through private conversation, before making one’s concerns public. This is classic political strategizing. We feel very ambivalent about this. On the one hand, it might work, and it could be preferable to exposing oneself as a sole target to a verbal battering. On the other hand, it’s a manipulative tactic that could be characterized as sleazy, depending on the amount and quality of the persuading involved.

Furthermore, you will always be out-sleazed by the other party if she is willing to go further than you are. This is not a competition worth entering into unless you’re willing to go over to the dark side. After your fellow collective members have figuratively beaten you up with personal attacks, vilification, and calls for your banishment, we think you will want, at least, to walk away with your integrity.

Home Back to Booklet One Back to Booklet Two