#consensus decision making

[substantiating-shadows]

I will forever read the minutes for every Meeting for Business from 3 new york city Meetings because although theyre boring as all shit, theyre also the only Western model of consensus decision making i know of that works well enough to keep a whole-ass religion functioning and we could all learn a thing or two from the procedure.

[anarkittyuwuuniverse]

I've been thinking a bit about consensus-decision making vs systems based on voting, advantages and disadvantages about both. I feel like people often have very strong feelings about both, I often hear anarchists holding up consensus as the one true anarchic system and dismiss voting as majoritarian tyranny. Meanwhile I hear more democratically-minded people denounce consensus systems as being even more hierarchical because people who disagree with a decision can't even hold onto that disagreement but have to subject it to the majority in order for the discussion to end and get anything done, + the issue of a few socially competent people dominating discussions, making up a new de-facto ruling class. As to the thing about socially competent people I feel like that's an issue that pretty much any kind of human organizing runs into and isn't exactly less prevalent in voting based systems, representative democracies are essentially popularity contests and any system based on intimate group conversation will run into that problem, but in local intimate contexts there's at least more possibility of implementing security measures, and in consensus systems specifically it's easier to avoid creating opposing camps because the outcome is not rigid and predetermined but subject to constant negotiation and revising (though it is still definitely possible to make camps). One thing that I like about the consensus models I've read about has been the possibility for people to opt-out when they don't have very strong feelings or any stakes in the decision being made, so that the people for whom the decision is most relevant get to decide. One of the biggest problems I see with democracy is that every vote is weighed the same regardless of people's social standing or relevance to the issue. This is based on liberal notions of equality and it's quite surprising to see so many communists be in favor of democracy when that directly contradicts Marx' disregard for egalitarianism in favor of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs". What's most important to me about decision-making is not that you have a majority behind it but that decisions are always made by the people impacted by those decisions, though the problem with that is that there's so much power to be gained in redefining and expanding who is included in this group, and it's not always so straight-forward, as it can be hard to see just how far the decisions we make can ripple. Maybe it'll become more obvious in a less-globalized world and with abolition of government, but even in such a world we might still encounter situations where different groups have to come together for matters that concerns them both, and with a larger number and more people who don't know each other voting might be preferable over consensus. I have a lot of issues with voting but I'm pretty open to the possibility of using different methods to suit different needs but I don't know I just have so many questions. This post is mainly me venting my thoughts and hoping it reaches some other anarchists who might have thought further than me, know about other models and methods, maybe there's even something completely outside the consensus/voting dichotomy?

[rotationalsymmetry]

I want to talk about consensus decision-making for a moment. (This is going to be a long post, and it is political.)

This is a thing the Quakers developed, that subsequently spread out to some radical groups. It’s a way of making decisions. You need everyone to agree, or depending on your approach at least not disagree too strenuously. But there’s a lot more to it than that makes it sound.

Because it’s really more like taking the process an individual uses to make a decision, and using that process as a collective. Let me explain.

You know the expression “being of two minds” about something? Often people don’t feel just one way about things. I’m thinking about the US presidential election here, so I’m going to use that as an example: many people could run up a pro/con list on voting Biden and there’d be items in each column, OK? Can we acknowledge that?

Many people voting for Biden have reservations. Most likely, many people not voting for Biden (on leftist grounds, although this probably also applies to Trump voters) have some conflicted thoughts feelings about this whether they show it or not. This is just how people are. Some people make a decision and never think twice about it, others second guess things a lot.

(In a Quaker meeting for business, this might look like “should we open a soup kitchen to support homeless people in our neighborhood” or some such. (In the case I’m thinking of, they ended up doing a food pantry instead.) In an activist group, this might look like, “are we willing to do this direct action that involves wrecking property?” In a shared meals situation, this might look like “do we have a single food budget for shared meals, or do we separate things out so the vegetarians don’t have to pay for meat and the meat eaters don’t pay for tofu?” (We eventually decided on a single budget, but it took way longer than it probably needed to. Oddly enough, most people were concerned that someone else would think it was unfair but they personally were fine with it.)

Consensus decision-making means rather than you personally making up your mind as an individual, and then arguing for your conclusion, you see what comes up. You can air thoughts both for and against the proposed action. So can everyone else. Maybe someone has a way of modifying the proposal to make it acceptable to everyone. Maybe the proposal gets shot down but in the discussion process someone comes up with an idea for a good alternative.

It’s putting the focus on process, rather than outcome.

There’s some downsides to this approach. For one, the meetings can go on really long. For another, people who aren’t used to doing things this way, well, it can be an awkward transition, since it is very different from the more common majority-rules voting. It requires being willing to be vulnerable and trust and assume good intent of the people you’re making decisions with. It is hard to scale up.

Anyways. I’m thinking of the US presidential election. And I’m thinking about how some people seem to be acting like we all have to hold our breaths and not breathe a word of criticism about Biden or skepticism about the value of voting, or else. And that moreover, the way to get people to not criticize Biden or voting is this really confrontational “you’re wrong and you’re a bad person” approach, which wow is really not how people work at all (have you met any people?)

It is possible to get people with very strong moral convictions who understand the stakes, to all sit down together and listen to what everyone else has to say, without judgement or blame, and come out on the other side all agreeing to a course of action. Shutting down disagreement doesn’t get you there. Allowing disagreement does.

...and yeah, obviously we don’t elect the president by consensus. But, I think the underlying idea is still relevant. It is not fundamentally dangerous to let people express different viewpoints. Even if you believe that acting in the way they’re suggesting would be very harmful. Does that make sense?

It is certainly not fundamentally dangerous to try to understand where someone else is coming from. Even if you think their conclusions are harmful.

[ucla-srrt-blog]

From In the Library with the Lead Pipe:

Libraries can be very siloed organizations. How often are public services staff involved in cataloging, acquisitions, and electronic resources management decisions, and vice versa? What will happen when catalogers are alongside instruction librarians thinking of new approaches to resource discovery? Consensus can open opportunities by deconstructing silos and starting to create new models for library decision-making.

Libraries that successfully engage in consensus decision-making will see improvement in making decisions that best serve their patrons; more cohesion in staff and accountability; and are likely to experience more creativity in problem solving. Individuals in these libraries will most likely become more dedicated to serving the organization and working towards its shared vision and mission. The reason these changes may occur, is that the decision-making and visioning is shared—individuals all contribute to the definition of and accomplishment of goals. Individuals would begin creating and environment of respect and trust, enabling them to participate in a democratic decision-making process.

[alliancejournal-blog-blog]

Dear Occupiers and ALLies, 

The crew of Occupy Asheville, NC really have their acts together. For a lot of concerned and interested people the Occupy movement might be their first exposure to direct/participatory democracy and consensus decision making. 

In order to make your Occupation a success and to help build or build up those institutions you will need for the pre-post revolutionary world having a good grasp of group dynamics is key. This is our movement, the 99%. That means we all need to have a say and feel a part of the process.

And if you are like me and really dig the hand signals, check out the cool stiff at rhizome.  Especially the Hand Signals!