Twinkling

Chuck Munson chuck at tao.ca
Sat Feb 9 08:37:44 PST 2002


Nathan Newman wrote:
>
> In any organizing meeting, clapping or twinkling is coercive and a way to
> overwhelm minority opinions by continually overwhelming contrary opinions.
> The flip side of twinkling is the "consensus decisionmaking" that gives
> minorities few formal voting opportunities, since things are "talked
> through" until a "consensus" emerges. Twinkling is part of the coercion to
> force minorities to give in without formal voting, in some ways less rude
> than clapping but visually stronger-- it's much like the patriotic
> flagwaving we see in mainstream media which makes alternative opinions even
> more uncomfortable.

Umm, it's just twinkling. This practice, which isn't used by everybody at a meeting, is a pretty good way to get the vibe of how people are thinking about a proposal. It's better to see half the room twinkling than to see no reaction at all. It helps the facilitator know when it is time to take a straw poll or a final vote on a proposal.

Consensus decision-making is more fair to minorities because they simply can't be voted over by the majority. A minority can block a proposal in this process (which I've done on several occasions), thereby stopping a proposal from being passed over the legimate concerns of the minority. The next step could be tinkering with the proposal after hearing the concerns of the blocker, tabling the proposal to the next meeting, or dropping the proposal and looking at other options.

THe other important thing about this process is that is has good methods to simply stop bad proposals from being passed for the sake of efficiency or because people want to go home.


> I thought Cooper's piece was a pile of crap -- why spend the first part of
> precious space about PA on trashing domestic folks rather than highlighting
> the positive -- but the general view of process being more serious in such
> places than in our "process-obsessed" groups strikes me as true. I find the
> process of many student and "anarchist" groups to be incredibly elitist and
> anti-democratic, with endless meetings and insider-manipulated processes,
> where power goes to those with the most free time and the fewest day care
> responsibilities.

I don't find that to be true at all. There are many problems with these methods, but they mainly stem from inexperience on the part of facilitators and participants. And if we want to model the world we are trying to create, we need to use a system that is nonhierarchical and democractic as possible.

If you want to talk about insider-manipulated processes, just about any meeting run in the old school leftism mode has plenty of that. This ranges from some central committee or group telling its members how to manipulate the meetings to leaders deciding the agenda and line of the group.

Consensus decision-making is an empowering process that aims to get everybody involved in the process. Traditional forms are much better at encouraging the leader-follower hierarchy.

<< Chuck0 >>

Infoshop.org -> http://www.infoshop.org/ Alternative Press Review -> http://www.altpr.org/ Practical Anarchy Online -> http://www.practicalanarchy.org/ Anarchy: AJODA -> http://www.anarchymag.org/ MutualAid.org -> http://www.mutualaid.org/ Factsheet 5 -> http://www.factsheet5.org/ AIM: AgentHelloKitty

Web publishing and services for your nonprofit: Bread and Roses Web Publishing http://www.breadandrosesweb.org/

"Chuck Munson isn't like other protestors."

-- CTV



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list