> This paragraph sums up all that is wrong with consensus decisionmaking-- the
> idea that "wanting to go home" is a bad value and should be stopped in favor
> of endless meetings. Those who are willing to block and hold things up and
> get their way through wearing down those who have lives and want to get on
> with the work they came together to do. So let me amend my earlier
> statement-- consensus politics is both oppressive to minority and majority
> opinions and only empowering to those willing to abuse the patience of
> others and take advantage of the privileges that allow them to outlast
> others at meetings.
Well, since we are getting down to basic differences between us, I'm not surprised that a liberal would continue to misrepresent what amounts to be an anarchist process.
"Wanting to go home" is a value that all of us have felt during a long meeting. I agree that this is a normal human emotion, however it is a poor excuse to rush through a decision or end a discussion. Like standard majoritarian decision-making, decisions and discussions can be put on hold and be resumed at the next meeting. And a block doesn't necessary make a meeting longer. What tends to make meetings longer are poorly prepared facilitators and participants, cranks who like to hear themselves talk, and so on.
Your suggestion that consensus decision-making is "oppressive" is based on your politics, experience, gender, and class position. We often hear similar rants from authoritarian leftists who wish to get rid of this method and replace it with their far more oppressive method: majoritarian rule and agendas set by leadership.
> Wanting to go home is the most perfectly normal emotion to have at most left
> meetings; not wanting to go in the first place is the second most normal
> emotion-- and a lot of people act on that basis. Which means that decisions
> by those who show up for endless meetings are usually unrepresentative of
> the normal run of humanity, instead containing freaks like Chuck and myself
> who can happily endure such endless ordeals.
I've been pretty outspoken in our local anti-capitalist group lately about keeping the meetings short and efficient. The meetings drag out for the following reasons:
1) facilitators are inexperienced in the process 2) participants are poorly prepared 3) meetings don't start on time because "we are still waiting for somebody."
> The normal alternative in history is for people who hate meetings to elect
> people to represent them to exercise their interests; Unfortunately, most
> anarchist style groups don't recognize that a person elected by 10,000 (or 1
> million) union or organizational members should have more decision-making
> heft than an 18-year old with endless time on their hands who happens to be
> able to attend every meeting.
That's when you move to a spokescouncil model where a delegate or delegates is empowered to represent the smaller group to a larger meeting.
> Recognizing representative democracy is
> "oppressive" and "hierarchical." There are some reasonable reform
> intentions in the whole "particapatory democracy" rhetoric, but somewhere
> along the way it jumped the rails of sanity and any semblance of democracy
> that includes anyone other than political freaks who love to attend
> meetings.
That's a fair criticism, the stuff about the freaks, but this means that these meetings aren't being done correctly. Many of us have little experience with an egalitarian process that requires us to participate and not simply rubber stamp opinions coming out of the central committee.
> Democracy is not representing all the views of those who happen to show up
> to a meeting but aiming to represent the views of those who don't show as
> well. The very term "participatory" democracy, however highminded, is
> inherently exclusive. Leadership is not alienating but quite empowering for
> the vast numbers of people in the world who want to leave the room and know
> that their interests will be fully represented when they are not there.
> Concentrating on making the leadership democratically accountable is a
> continual needed focus of reform, but eliminating it is hopeless not due to
> any iron law of hierarchy but because most people want to be able to go home
> and sleep.
We will have to disagree. I see the anarchist model as being a fully workable alternative to hierarchical decision-making.
I hear you, Nathan, about the long meetings.
<< 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