THE BIGGER QUESTION!!!.... In addressing the sources of our present ecological and social problems, perhaps the most fundamental message that social ecology advances is that the very idea of dominating nature stems from the domination of human by human. First, the most fundamental route to a resolution of our ecological problems is social in character. That is to say, if we are faced with the prospect of outright ecological catastrophe, toward which so many knowledgeable people and institutions claim we are headed today, it is because the historical domination of human by human has been extended outward from society into the natural world. Until domination as such is removed from social life and replaced by a truly egalitarian and sharing society, powerful ideological, technological, and systemic forces will be used by the existing society to degrade the environment, indeed the entire biosphere. Hence, more than ever today, it is imperative that we develop the consciousness and the movement to remove domination from society, indeed from our everyday lives—in relationships between the young and the elderly, between women and men, in educational institutions and workplaces, and in our attitude toward the natural world. To permit the poison of domination—and a domineering sensibility—to persist is, at this time, to ignore the most basic roots of our ecological as well as social problems—problems whose sources can be traced back to the very roots of our civilization. My own experience has showed me that consensus does not necessarily mean talking to agreement is reached. It could very well mean “talking until we’re sick of it”, with a large amount of uncertainty regarding what was actually decided. If anything. Even if this wasn’t the case, consensus is a strictly verbal process. This means that the well articulated will be put ahead of the less articulated. Anyone who has spent a certain amount of time in a group utilizing consensus will have noticed that the same people usually talk the most. In contrast with voting you have no way of knowing what is on everybody’s mind unless you employ a round where everybody gets to speak. A group where decision making is done through consensus is vulnerable to a number of informal hierarchies. If the first five to speak about a theme are all for an initiative that you’re against, how easy is it to raise your hand and object? If the meeting has dragged out and you know putting your hand up and voicing your concern will start a long discussion, where is the threshold for making yourself heard? Depending on who you are the threshold could be different places, but in a process where verbal prowess is all that counts I dare say the driving necessity of unanimity may quiet dissent, and damper healthy discussion. Romantic “consciousness” Not only is the group vulnerable to hierarchies. If they occur the group will have little chance of discovering them, so little of the process being formalized. How do you see that a member is not raising his or her hand for fear of too many others disagreeing? How do you see that a member will not speak because of fatigue after a long and fruitless meeting? How do you perceive that someone is silent because they are not comfortable with their own abilities of articulation? The answer I hear is not reassuring. I have been in meeting where the group has picked up on the fact that a few people did most of the talking. In the evaluation one arrived at the conclusion that in the future we must all be more “conscious” and “supportive” of others in the group talking. …OK? AND? I’ve heard activists who are obviously aware if the defects of their own organizational structure, but formal remedies remain lacking. The loose form of the organization makes implementing formal checks and balances difficult. Loose organization does not rid a group of hierarchy but masks it. Without mapping the process with rules, it’s hard to find the kinks and reflect on the consequences of your organizational structure. I sometimes feel that our direct democratic structure with voting feels redundant. This feeling often correlates with the number of people attending the meeting. In small groups where everybody knows each other, it’s easier to detect dissent, and easier to share it. I also find that the more people there are at a meeting utilizing consensus, the more unmanageable, confusing, and time-consuming the meeting tends to be. In addition I’ve also been a newcomer to a group, and experienced how disorienting it can be to learn how the decisions are made without formal rules. The meetings seem almost like a chemical process, and yourself like a new foreign element that everybody wonders if will disturb the balance. In sharp contrast it took me a very short time understanding a formalized direct democratic decision making process employing voting. There were simple rules to follow; they were written down, and one could easily observe if everybody followed them. From all this I can but conclude that consensus is incompatible with growth. If one wants to engage new people and grow the structure must be formalized and transparent. A group of activist can’t operate as a clique of friends and expect to attract others. To be able to act both collectively and effectively we must have a realistic and mature understanding of rules as a tool to ensure a horizontal structure. We cannot in a romantic daze deny the hierarchies we create with a decision making process which is neither egalitarian, nor structured.
Posted on: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 06:35:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015