One of the things I see people struggle in the Collective Thinking and Direct Participatory Democracy model is the co-existence of consensus decision-making and the commitment to each person's absolute autonomy.
I've seen tweets for instance suggesting that to join and Occupation is to "submit" to the collective:
resistoccupy
@papicek Anybody is welcome to Occupy who submits to the will of the GA. #occupyboston #ows
7:47pm, Oct 16 from Web
Nothing could be farther from the truth. In fact, consensus decision-making cannot be effective without honoring every individual's autonomy. Why? And what does it mean to have autonomy within a collective thinking community?
In the Collective Thinking/Participatory Democracy model, it is held that consensus decision-making, when done properly, leads to the most sustainable solutions. At the same time, each person is afforded the right to absolute autonomy. That is, no one is beholden to the consensus. It is a choice to participate in the decision-making process and to adhere to consensus decisions.
Well managed, the consensus decision-making model provides as many places as possible for people to inject their ideas and have them incorporated into any solutions that their Working Groups (WG) or General Assembly (GA) might end up consenting to.
At #OccupyBoston, the Facilitation WG is constantly looking at ways to ensure that the process is more and more inclusive. We're currently working on a proposal about what steps a proposal might go through before being presented at the GA. It will include things such as:
- posting your proposal online and at camp in print well ahead of presenting
- scheduling which GA your proposal will be presented at
- doing outreach to other WGs to let them know you have a proposal in the pipeline and would like their input
- scheduling a WG, or individually hosted, meeting between the time of posting and the time of presenting to the GA, where everyone present goes through a full consensus process regarding the proposal
- announcing at a GA when your proposal is available for perusal and when the WG will be meeting for input.
- presenting at the GA after considering all input already received
The goal here is to make as many opportunities as possible for everyone to gain access to decisions being taken and have time to consider the decision and offer input. The hope is that by the time it reaches the GA, most people have seen the proposal and have been able to have their voice included in it or have experienced that their voice is being excluded and can say so at the GA. (Please note that in the consensus process, when one person has a concern or objection it then belongs to the whole collective. Everyone is then responsible for addressing that objective. That may be as simple as providing information which moots the concern or it may involve amending the proposal. It could also take the form of acknowledging that the concern/objection is still active and that we need to come up with a solution for that if we do consent to the current proposal. Everyone's concerns and objections are to be taken seriously. This is a way to ensure that minority voices are not ignored.)
The idea is that more and more people will choose to adhere to any decisions finally made in the GA because the solutions have included their voices and they don't feel imposed upon. When the consensus is taken, we ask "can you live with this?" Very different from "Do you agree?" This acknowledges that there are rarely any perfect solutions which everyone will agree is the best solution. Instead, we accept that perfection can be the enemy of the good and we consent to what we can live with.
Even as group decisions are made, we reserve the right to autonomy, though. This may feel antithetical but, in fact, it is key to the consensus decisions being sustainable. Each person needs to feel that she will not be coerced by the group into groupthink. It is a personal choice to participate and to abide by group decisions. When people do not feel oppressed by the group, they are actually more likely to participate and to cooperate. When they know they will not be shunned for having a minority opinion or strong disagreement, they are more free to express those.
In consensus decision-making, one of the key principles of getting to good decisions is to foster disagreement. That is, to make it safe to disagree and to encourage people to express their disagreement. We do have to teach each other how to disagree non-violently. We have to have a discipline about disagreeing with an idea and not a person. We have to internalize that we are disagreeing, not to be angry or as an opponent, but because disagreement evokes all the things we need consider to build a better solution together. Stating a concern or objection leads to the adding of another brick in the building, not a demolition.
This is very different from authoritarian or competitive decision-making. In authoritarian decision-making there is no room for disagreement at all. Everyone is simply subject to the power of the authority. In competitive decision-making disagreement is, well, competition. Instead of seeing the disagreement as an ingredient of your solution building, you see it as opposition. It is threatening. Disagreement leads to competing proposals from which everyone is asked to choose. Most often this leads to choosing the least worst. It also discourages people who don't feel they would win any competitions from coming forward with their concerns, objections or suggestions. The collective loses a lot of creative thinking power.
So, in consensus decision-making, we build processes which encourage maximum participation in building solutions together. We have faith that this leads to the most sustainable decisions for the group, as no one feels marginalized. Yet, we don't require that everyone adhere to those decisions. We allow for autonomy. How does that work?
Let's say an Occupation has reached a consensus on the decision to comply with police instructions not to erect tents. Since everyone is allowed autonomy, no one can stop someone from erecting a tent. Someone who feels strongly about the right to erect a tent, goes ahead and does so. They take autonomous action in direct conflict with the consensus.
When this happens, the person is not then punished or excluded from the collective (in the ideal.) Instead, the collective comes together to determine how it will respond. The collective can choose to support the person if it wants to. Or it could choose to turn their backs. It could even choose to invite the police in to attend to that person and his tent. The collective may take any action it deems best for the collective. The person making the autonomous action must accept that by doing so, the collective may not support him. He stands fully accountable and responsible for his individual action. He has taken a risk and must accept the potential consequences. In the ideal, everybody simply sees these as actions and responses and does not take it personally. Nor do they judge people. He had the right to erect the tent. Other have the right to determine what is the best thing for them to do. Everything is attended to in a non-violent manner, which means no yelling or attacking a person's character.
This whole concept can be a challenging dynamic because many want to believe that a group decision is somehow "law". They may believe they find comfort in that. However, as soon as a consensus decision is taken which you find wholly unacceptable, you will not be comfortable with an atmosphere of absolute law. You will see the need for having autonomy.
Meanwhile, individuals who choose autonomous action can feel that because they are afforded the right to autonomy, their actions should be supported by the collective. Yet, as soon as someone does something that they feel damages the collective, they can see how it is not always a good thing to support an autonomous action, even though you support the right to take one.
The consensus decision-making model, in my experience, beautifully balances and emphasis on inclusiveness and working together with full respect for the rights of the individual. I have seen several cases where potentially explosive situations, due to high emotions and differing visions, are defused by embracing those in conflict rather than separating into factions. When people are upset about something they are invited in to help build solutions.
Though I found it personally exhausting, I went through this with someone the other day. He started out screaming obscenities and ad hominem attacks. He was physically aggressive. I reached out to him. I kept saying, "Do you want to have a dialogue?" I waited for him to say, "yes" and we talked. I listened to his concerns. I acknowledged them. I invited him to join the working group which would be the one building solutions to the issues he had. To bring his input and make sure that he was heard. He calmed down a lot. In the end he was hugging me. He had started off saying, "I don't trust you!" He ended by saying, "Okay, I trust you a little now." You could see everyone around us relax. Body language changed instantly. Rather than leaning in with rigid bodies and one ear pushed forward, people stood back, shoulders down facing full forward with both ears listening in balance.
That word, trust, resonated with me. The principles of consensus decision-making are trust-building. You listen to one another. You take each other's concerns on as your own. This makes people feel care for, seen, and embraced rather than marginalized and on their own. When I look at the public discourse in our nation of competitive thinking and decision-making, I see a fostering of distrust. It's blatant. It's actually part of the system. Leader sow distrust in order to garner loyal followers. How can we build a society together if we distrust one another? Clearly we can't build a sustainable one. We need to try something different. Something which helps us hear one another and see that we're all in this together. Something that builds the bonds of trust.
Consensus with autonomy is the first system I've seen which really does that.
My previous diaries on OccupyBoston & OccupyWallSt:
Anti-Capitalist Meet-Up: What is this #Occupy thing?
OccupyBoston: A Hard Day's Night
OccupyBoston: Triumph and Tedium
A space of our own: A Women's Perspective on OccupyBoston clicks
#OccupyBoston: the day after
A Proposal to the Greenway Conservancy re: #OccupyBoston
Holding the Line at #OccupyBoston
#occupywallstreet: a primer on consensus and the General Assembly
#OccupyBoston: learning together
from an #occupier to Ed Schultz: Yes, we can change gov't w/UPDATE
from #OccupyWallStreet to #OccupyBoston : lessons
#OccupyTheRecList: a discussion (w/clarification update)
Witnessing #occupywallstreet: the power .... of the people ... 's mic
Witnessing #occupywallstreet: my 2nd day
Witnessing #occupywallstreet #6: my first day
Witnessing #OccupyWallStreet #5
Witnessing #OccupyWallStreet #4: Send blankets, Updated #2
Witnessing #OccupyWallStreet #3: Cheer Them On!