| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
Organized Community– What I've Learned
This week, John Michael Greer (see links for Archdruid Report on this site) was discussing how candidates got to be so bland and boring and FAKE (my words, not his– but same essential meaning) was due to how corporate money now pretty much directly buys candidates. Our political system, never perfect, nonetheless used to require real local schmoozing with real local people that would then expand into less and less local areas and eventually lead to leadership. Now, its just money and commercials and people tend to vote for the least worst candidate presented.
Anyway, he mentioned at one point how the left in the 60s with “consensus” meetings pretty much finished destroying much of the original political part of the process that used to work: being able to have meetings that ended on time with most people getting a chance to be heard beforehand. That reminded me of something… and inspired this post.
Though I seem mostly left leaning in so many ways (environmentalist, socially liberal, etc.) I can't quite call myself a card-carrying member of that group for several reasons. One of them is that I can see clearly where certain now widely accepted conventions (on the left) just don't work in the real world. I came upon this most regularly when I was the Priestess for many years of a Circle, and that Circle went to Pagan events and festivals together. I often taught workshops at these various meetings and events– and that put me square up against all these extreme liberal idealists who would argue with me and simply refuse to believe some of their most cherished beliefs would not and did not WORK in real life. Despite all evidence to the contrary in real time!
For example, one workshop I taught was how to organize a pagan circle to make it run smoothly and actually get things accomplished. Having been in pagan groups before creating my own, I had faced many agonizing meetings where we tried to simply figure out what to do to celebrate a Sabbat, and I would walk away from most with horrific headaches. Everyone had to have equal say, whether they were experienced and knowledgable — or not. And that drove me absolutely insane. And people argued and protested and whined, and then half the time no one was happy with the weird compromised result that came about in the end ANYWAY. Then the group broke up within a month or two. Often some of the same people would try again, only leaving certain less popular people from the last time OUT of it, but they would hit upon the same problems again, no matter how they mixed it up, dropped some people or brought in new people. It wasn't the PEOPLE that was the problem, it was the way decisions were being made and it was awful. I figured out what the problem was and tried to get my voice heard as a part of the many– and was dismissed because everyone was clinging to this ideal of perfect equality. Which is why I walked away and one day started my own group with ME as the leader.
So I developed a system, and this is what I shared in the workshops– which were generally some of the highest attended at every festival in which I presented it. Pretty simple– just to acknowledge that humans are prone to social hierarchies and political maneuverings and so a way to address that fact FAIRLY for everyone was what was needed. And I outlined a few different ideas. You could rotate control between factions (there are generally subgroups in any group.) You could give more power to those who had been in the group the longest, contributed the most work, and passed the most tests in knowledge (which is what my own group did.) You could allow people to be assigned to areas they had both talent and interest in and be in charge of those limited areas, so everyone has some power in some things (and we did this as well.)
My point was that even in consensus there is politics and leaders and followers. You need to move things along and balance fairness with efficiency. Most people prefer leaders, as long as they know their own concerns matter and will be addressed, and as long as it means they can get out of some of the work that way. The need to be in charge of things wars with our need to avoid work in things, and this too must be acknowledged and addressed in groups. You wanna have more say? Great! Do more of the work! Don't want to work that much? Great! Then follow along politely and enjoy the ride the workers provide you. Pretty self evident, once you just put it OUT THERE. My solution to the power crisis in groups was that those in power had to EARN it, and keep earning it. And it worked, for 10 years– even when I wasn't there, that simple system for a group of 9 or more people hummed along pretty well without too much bullshit.
See, the reason things fall apart and people freak out in non-organized “everybody's equal” groups is that when power is never decided, its always open to negotiation. And when its open to negotiation, everyone starts to angle for advantage. They do– they just do, they can't help themselves. Ideally, people want to have MORE say than those around them while doing the LEAST amount of work. As other people witness certain people taking advantage and actually getting more say and less work, they get defensive, think its not fair (because it isn't) and start to fight for more say and less work themselves. Then you end up, time and again, with everyone jostling for position to have others work for them, like lords and ladies of the manor, or at least to prevent others from getting that privilege– and this is in liberal CONSENSUS groups. Which is why they don't work. Its a constant fucking fight every second over every little detail.
Once I pointed out this obvious dynamic in my workshop– you could see the light bulbs popping on in my listeners. We often did a couple of demos before I made my point to drive that very point home. Right there in the workshop people would vie for power, which meant: more say, less work. Right there and then it became clear that unless you realize people do these things, and you can't stop them, the only answer is to find a way to deal with the human reality. Only then could you get past the whole issue of power.
And I got arguments. I mean, by far, most people agreed with me and were attending my workshop for ideas on what to do to improve these massive issues they were having in their own pagan groups. But there were always these radical lefties that got disgusted with me and insisted that humans were NOT status seeking, or that having leaders was a bad thing because we should ALL be equal ALL the time. I was proud of how I handled these often public confrontations, because I kept my calm and simply asked them how long they'd had a group and what was their turnover rate. Consensus groups rarely last longer than 3 to 6 MONTHS. They can't last because in-fighting and bickering and the tedious bullshit of even getting the most simple things decided tears them apart too quickly. Its why Occupy Wallstreet never got anywhere (as Greer helpfully points out.)
Then came my second point in my workshop: not only does consensus not work because people can't help vying for more say and less work, but it doesn't work because people are not equal. Entitled to equal opportunity to progress, yes– no argument there. But born identical? No, of course not. Some are smarter. Some are savvier with other people. Some are gentler. Some are more vigilant. Everyone has different strengths and weaknesses– and if you don't address THAT reality, you're wasting your time and the potential of your people. You have to create an environment where a person's strength, whatever it is, can come out and benefit the group– but also where weaknesses don't tear the group apart. And that was the second part (the advanced part) of my workshop.
Thinking back on those days, when I discussed issues like that in my late 20s and early 30s!- damn… Anyway, it brings me to mind of part of my dilemma now in considering joining or starting any community oriented groups in the future. I refuse to be a part of any that don't take those things into consideration and have a fair way to address them. Its almost embarrassing from my point of view. I rarely trust that a truly fair system will be in place that can allow me to shine where I am able to, but not be unduly burdened by things I'm not so good at…
2012-08-23 15:13:24
Source:
