Fetishizing Process

(This paper first appeared in Social Anarchism)

http://zinelibrary.info/files/Fetishizing%20Process.pdfre re

Mar !ance "eorgeto#n $ni%ersity

&nstit'te for (narchist )t'dies )'**er 200+

&f one #ere forced to e,plain consens's process in fi%e *in'tes- one *ight begin #ith a brief pitch abo't the ind of disc'ssion that sho'ld precede the gro'p ta ing a decision. )'ch a pitch #o'ld be fairly %ag'e- and #o'ld deal #ith s'ch things as listening- incl'ding all points of %ie#- critical disc'ssion and arg'*ent- and creati%ity in the for*'lation of possible co*pro*ises and syntheses. .'t one #o'ld /'ic ly s#itch fro* the topic of disc'ssion to the specific proced're that is 'sed to ta e a for*al decision. 0ere the acco'nt is not at all %ag'e- as precise as any sort of %oting proced're. 1ne #o'ld e,plain ho# a position is proposed- ho# people ha%e the choice of s'pporting- standing aside- or bloc ing- ho# a position can only be adopted by the gro'p if no one bloc s- etc. (&t is li ely- and rele%ant- that the *a2ority of people #ho ha%e been part of decision *a ing 'nder the banner of 3consens's process4 ha%e little *ore than s'ch a fi%e *in'te 'nderstanding of #hat is in%ol%ed.) &f one had *'ch *ore than fi%e *in'tes to e,plain consens's process- one #o'ld say little *ore abo't the for*al proced're for ta ing decisions. This part really can be defined in a fe# *in'tes. 1ne #o'ld- ho#e%er- go into far *ore detail on the co*ple,less precise- *ore deeply conte,t'al b'siness that precedes act'ally ta ing a decision. That is- one #o'ld foc's on the process of disc'ssion- option for*'lation- arg'*ent- etc. &n #hat follo#s- let 's call the co*ple, process of disc'ssion 5 a process abo't #hich *'ch can be said- b't the proper f'nctioning of #hich is 'nli ely to be definable %ia a set of precise r'les 5 3practice4. The set of for*al r'les that define a *ethod of ta ing a decision #ill be referred to as 3proced're4. This distinction- in itself- is nothing s'rprising or ne#- b't & #ant to arg'e that it is of great i*port to the debate bet#een

*a2ority %oting and consens's. )'ch debates are central to anarchist theory as they concern the for* and content of de*ocratic incl'sion. &ndeed- if anything is essential to anarchis*- it is the idea that social decisions are to be ta en by e%eryone affected- and that this incl'sion *'st in%ol%e s'bstanti%e participation of each in deliberation and decision7*a ing. Th's a disp'te on the nat're of s'ch participation is a disp'te abo't the %ery essence of anarchis*. .'t & arg'e that the debate bet#een %oting and consens's is deeply fla#ed. First*any ad%ocates on each side r'n together proced're and practice in a pernicio's #ay 5 criticizing proced'res of the other side- #hile defending not their o#n proced're- b't rather their conception of practice. )econd- it t'rns o't that the right ans#er to ho# #e o'ght to str'ct're o'rsel%es 5 aro'nd a nor* of consens's or a nor* of *a2ority r'le 5 depends cr'cially on #hether #e are tal ing abo't proced're or practice. &n short- and rather *isleadingly- proced'res sho'ld be closer to *a2ority r'le- b't only in the ser%ice of a practice that is geared aro'nd a deep co**it*ent to consens's. &n arg'ing for this second point- & sho# that consens's procedure is act'ally deeply 'ns'ited to radical organizations. .'t at the sa*e ti*e- & begin to *a e the case that a foc's on proced're itself is 'lti*ately the real proble*- #hich brings 's to the third and *ost i*portant point. (n anti7a'thoritarian de*ocratic organization *'st not 'nderstand itself as defined by a set of for*al proced'res. 8'les can be 'sed- as tools of a %irt'o's co**'nity #ith a largely f'nctional practice- b't they sho'ld be no *ore than tools. $nderstanding the goal of de*ocratic co**'nity to in%ol%e a search for the right set of for*al r'les that #e can then blindly follo# #ith no f'rther obligation to their proper and 2'st i*ple*entation is no better than 'nderstanding it as a search for the best

and *ost 2'st ing. Ma ing a fetish of a process 5 #orshiping a #ay of doing things 5 can be e%ery bit as oppressi%e as *a ing a fetish of personal a'thority. 1: More heat than light One might expect discussions of decision-making process by anarchists to be among the most intellectually sophisticated, civil, and collaborative of debates in political philosophy. After all, the idea that people can, without authoritarian or hierarchical oversight, reach just decisions among themselves in a way that expresses and at the same time nurtures the autonomy of the individual is central to anarchism. So surely, at least in their internal discussions of how to achieve these goals in existing organizations, anarchists would strive to exhibit the sorts of collaborative process they advocate for society at large. 1n the other hand- there is the real #orld. Tho'gh there e,ist caref'l and respectf'l contrib'tions to the anarchist debate on gro'p process- one finds a great deal *ore by #ay of caricat're- deno'nce*ent- and table7po'nding. (d%ocates of consens's- for e,a*ple- try to associate %oting #ith coercion- 'nthin ing *echanis*- rigidity of tho'ght- and an endorse*ent of liberal representationalis*. :onsens's *eans *a ing decisions by the 'nited consent of all. &t is noncoerci%e- as it a%oids i*posing anyone;s #ill on others. < :onsens's is really *ore nat'ral than *a2ority %ote. < &n consens's- the gro'p enco'rages the sharing of all %ie#points held by those #ith interest in a

topic. These %ie#points are then disc'ssed in a spirit of respect and *'t'al acco**odation. =e# ideas arise and %ie#points are synthesized- 'ntil a for*'la e*erges that #ins general appro%al. < :onsens's is 3organic4> 'nli e *echanical %oting.4?

:onsens's is a decision7*a ing process that reflects co**it*ent to the right of e%ery person to infl'ence decisions that affect the*. <:onsens's is a creati%e process. &t is a process for synthesizing the ideas and concerns of all gro'p *e*bers. $nli e %oting- it is not an ad%ersary- #in/lose *ethod. @ith consens's- #e do not ha%e to choose bet#een t#o alternati%es. &nstead #e can create a third- a fo'rth or *ore as #e see that proble*s *ay ha%e *any possible sol'tions. Those #ho hold %ie#s different fro* o'rs do not beco*e opponentsA instead- their %ie#s can be seen as gi%ing 's a fresh and %al'able perspecti%e. (s #e #or to *eet their concerns- o'r proposals *ay be strengthened. @hen #e 'se consens's- #e enco'rage each personBs acti%e participation- and #e listen caref'lly to #hat each person says.42

1r finally: 3Coting is a process in #hich people e,press their preferences 5 #hether strongly heartfelt or #ea ly ephe*eral. Coters are 's'ally forced to choose bet#een t#o proposals 5 ostensibly opposite- b't often

3:o*ing to :onsens's: Tips for :ooperation and :ollaboration in Decision Ma ing- or 0o# to 8'n Meetings )o E%eryone @ins4 .y Mar )hepard Fhttp://###.*ar shep.co*/non%iolence/:onsens's.ht*l 2 =1=C&1!E=T (:T&1= 0(=D.11G Group Process, by Sanderson Beck [http://www.san.beck.org/NAH1-Nonviolence.html]

both 'nacceptable: 3#o'ld yo' rather be po ed in the eye #ith a stic or hit on the head #ith a roc I4 The decision is reached by si*plistically adding 'p these preferences. FCotingJ often enco'rages cagey *anip'lation.4
6

3Those #ho hold %ie#s different fro* o'rs do not beco*e opponentsA insteadtheir %ie#s can be seen as gi%ing 's a fresh and %al'able perspecti%e-4 < 'nless they ad%ocate %oting. &f they ad%ocate %oting- it see*s- there are fe# li*its to the caricat'res and red herrings #e can 'tilize. @hy- if #e ad%ocate %oting- can #e not be respectf'l of and learn fro* different %ie#sI @hy *'st #e consider only t#o proposalsI @hy *'st #e coerce people- or ignore their right to infl'ence decisions that affect the*I .'t those #ho oppose the c'rrent trend to#ards consens's in anarchist circles areif anything- #orse: The only collective alternative to majority voting as a means of decisionmaking that is commonly presented is the practice of consensus. Indeed, consensus has even been mystified by avowed "anarcho-primitivists," who consider Ice Age and contemporary "primitive" or "primal" peoples to constitute the apogee of human social and psychic attainment. I do not deny that consensus may be an appropriate form of decision-making in small groups of people who are thoroughly familiar with one another. But to examine consensus in practical terms, my own experience has shown me that when larger groups try to make decisions by consensus, it usually obliges them to arrive at the lowest common intellectual denominator in
3

Notes on Consensus Decision Making, Randy Schutt [http://www.vernalproject.org/RPapers.shtml#CoopDecMaking]

their decision-making: the least controversial or even the most mediocre decision that a sizable assembly of people can attain is adopted -- precisely because everyone must agree with it or else withdraw from voting on that issue. More disturbingly, I have found that it permits an insidious authoritarianism and gross manipulations -- even when used in the name of autonomy or freedom.

& can personally attest to the fact that #ithin the :la*shell (llianceconsens's #as fostered by often cynical L'a ers and by *e*bers of a d'bio'sly ManarchicM co**'ne that #as located in Montag'eMassach'setts. < &n order for that cli/'e to create f'll consens's on a decision- *inority dissenters #ere often s'btly 'rged or psychologically coerced to decline to %ote on a tro'bling iss'e- inas*'ch as their dissent #o'ld essentially a*o'nt to a one7person %eto. < 0a%ing #ithdra#nthey ceased to be political beings 77 so that a MdecisionM co'ld be *ade. < 1n a *ore theoretical le%el- consens's silenced that *ost %ital aspect of all dialog'e- dissens's. The ongoing dissent- the passionate dialog'e that still persists e%en after a *inority accedes te*porarily to a *a2ority decision- #as replaced in the :la*shell by d'll *onolog'es 77 and the 'ncontro%erted and deadening tone of consens's. &n *a2ority decision7 *a ing- the defeated *inority can resol%e to o%ert'rn a decision on #hich they ha%e been defeated 77 they are free to openly and persistently artic'late reasoned and potentially pers'asi%e disagree*ents. :onsens's-

for its part- honors no *inorities- b't *'tes the* in fa%or of the *etaphysical MoneM of the Mconsens'sM gro'p.

The creati%e role of dissent- %al'able as an ongoing de*ocratic pheno*enon- tends to fade a#ay in the gray 'nifor*ity re/'ired by consens's. (ny libertarian body of ideas that see s to dissol%e hierarchyclasses- do*ination and e,ploitation by allo#ing e%en MarshallBs M*inority of oneM to bloc decision7*a ing by the *a2ority of a co**'nity- indeed- of regional and nation#ide confederations- #o'ld essentially *'tate into a 8o'ssea'ean Mgeneral #illM #ith a night*are #orld of intellect'al and psychic confor*ity. 9 FM'rray .oo chinJ (Dont we all feel empowered to dissent from Murrays position?) Dissent *'st therefore be enco'raged- not disco'raged. 1nly thro'gh a principled disc'ssion of #hat is at sta e in an iss'e can the tr'th be clarified. &t is liberals77those #ho accept the syste*77#ho #ater do#n and obsc're tr'ths to platit'des #ith #hich e%eryone can agree and #ho see consens's in the for* of Mpeace.M &n an age of acco**odation li e o'rs77 as in all ages77it is liberals #ho #o'ld deny the i*portance of clarifying radical tr'ths.

Majority rule is the democratic method of determining the will of the large
9

@hat is :o**'nalis*I The De*ocratic Di*ension of (narchis*- M'rray .oo chin 5 fro* The (narchy (rchi%e Fhttp://d#ard*ac.pitzer.ed'/anarchistOarchi%es/boo chin/:MM=!2.M:@.ht*lJ

group in decision-making. For majority rule protects the minority's right to dissent, and majority rule exempts them from the obligation to carry out a group decision with which they disagree. In order for diversity of opinion to be valued, therefore, majority rule in large groups must be viewed as an acceptable process. FQanet .iehlJ &t is indicati%e- & s'ppose- of the depth of feeling on this iss'e that these serio's thin ers and acti%ists co'ld engage in s'ch a breath7ta ingly irrational string of caricat'res. For present p'rposes- & #ant to foc's on one aspect of the caricat're: that each side in this debate characterizes the other as defending a formal procedure- #hich is then held to a %ery high standard: essentially- to be foolproof. That is- if #e can i*agineor cite act'al instances of- beha%ior consistent #ith the proced're #hich %iolate core %al'es or other#ise gi%e rise to practices of deliberation #e don;t appro%e of- this is gro'nds for re2ecting the proced're. 1n the other hand- each side defines itself- not in ter*s of the for*al proced're- b't rather the proced're together #ith a %ag'ely stated collection of good practices- 2'st instit'tions- and %irt'o's agents. .oo chin and .iehl- for e,a*ple- define consens's as the proced're in #hich decisions are only adopted after 'ni%ersal assent (perhaps #ith stand7asides) and in #hich one person can bloc action. Then- .oo chin gi%es 's an e,a*ple of a gro'p 5 the :la*shell (lliance 5 that ab'sed this proced're by press'ring others into accepting the consens's.+ (1ne hardly need spea here of his transparent g'ilt7by7association ploy of *entioning pri*iti%ists.) .iehl and .oo chin both concl'de fro* e,a*ples li e this that
5

I have not researched this example, so I am simply taking Bookchins word about it for purposes of argument. Nothing of import here hangs on the actual case.

?0

consens's in general denies the e,istence of *inorities- b'llies the* into confor*ing#aters do#n radical tr'ths- e%en leads to 3a night*are #orld of intellect'al and psychic confor*ityR4H Many ad%ocates of consens's- si*ilarly- define 3*a2ority r'le4 in ter*s of the proced're of %oting on t#o pre7selected choices. They ass'*e that people co*e to these choices and %ote their antecedent inclinations (3#hether strongly heartfelt or #ea ly ephe*eral4)- that s'ch decisions are not 3disc'ssed in a spirit of respect and *'t'al acco**odation-4 that no effort is *ade to refor*'late options- or to co*e 'p #ith others- that those #ith differing %ie#s are treated as 3opponents-4 and that *anip'lation is li ely to be engaged in. That is- in both cases #hat is criticized is the practice of concrete- far fro* ideal gro'ps #ho 'tilize the proced're in disp'te. :ertainly there is no essential reason #hy di%iding opposing %otes into bloc s and stand7asides *'st lead to a s'ppression of dissent. &ndeed- as a si*ple *atter of logic- consens's assigns greater- indeed dictatorialpo#er to *inorities. The *ere fact that #e are going to %ote is ob%io'sly no g'arantee that so*e nefario's *a2ority #on;t try to press're *inorities into accepting their position on the gro'nds that a 'nani*o's %ote sho#s strength- solidarity- etc. )o it is really co*pletely ob%io's that the .oo chin/.iehl #orries ha%e nothing to do #ith the choice of #hich proced're one e*ploys. =or- ho#e%er- is there any reason #hy a co**it*ent to *a2ority r'le re/'ires lac of disc'ssion- li*iting options to t#o- or treating people as opponents. ( gro'p can engage in any sort of fair7*inded- incl'si%e- open7ended disc'ssion it li es- refor*'lating positions- trying o't options to see if there is 'nani*ity- learning fro* dissent- etc.- all
6

Lions and Tigers and Bears, oh my!

??

ending 'p in a *a2ority %ote on the proposal that see*s to ha%e *ost s'pport in the disc'ssion. Th's the ad%ocates of consens's /'oted abo%e are no *ore foc'sing on essential feat'res of gro'ps that 'se %oting than are .oo hin and .iehl foc'sing on essential feat'res of consens's gro'ps. &f there is an intelligible clai* being *ade in either arg'*ent- it can only be that the pernicio's sort of beha%ior in /'estion is *ore li ely in fact to follo# fro* the 'se of the proced're being attac ed. .'t neither side 5 nor any other literat're that &;* a#are of 5 *a es any serio's atte*pt to arg'e that one proced're is *ore li ely than the other to be ab'sed in this #ay. Pres'*ably- s'ch an arg'*ent #o'ld re/'ire concrete statistical e%idence- and &;* s eptical that any significant generalizations are forthco*ing. &n *y o#n rather e,tensi%e e,perience #ith acti%ist gro'ps- &;%e seen both proced'res 'sed #ell- and both ab'sed- #ith abo't e/'al fre/'ency. .y contrast- note ho# each gro'p disc'sses its o#n approach: 3&n consens's- the gro'p enco'rages the sharing of all %ie#points held by those #ith interest in a topic. These %ie#points are then disc'ssed in a spirit of respect and *'t'al acco**odation. =e# ideas arise and %ie#points are synthesized- 'ntil a for*'la e*erges that #ins general appro%al.4 1r for a *ore e,pansi%e acco'nt: )o #hat #o'ld an alternati%e re%ol'tionary decision *a ing process loo li e- yo' as I To begin #ith- a f'nda*ental shift fro* co*petition to cooperation. < :ooperation is *ore than Mli%e and let li%eM. &t is *a ing an effort to 'nderstand anotherBs point of %ie#. &t is incorporating anotherBs perspecti%e #ith yo'r o#n so that a ne# perspecti%e e*erges. &t is s'spending disbelief- e%en if only te*porarily- so yo' can see the ge* of

?2

tr'th in ideas other than yo'r o#n. &t is a process of creati%ity- synthesisand open7*indedness that leads to tr'st7b'ilding- better co**'nication and 'nderstanding- and 'lti*ately- a stronger- healthier- *ore s'ccessf'l gro'p. < The last and *ost %isible step to#ards re%ol'tionary change in gro'p process is the *anner in #hich *e*bers of the gro'p interact #ith each other. Do*inating attit'des and controlling beha%ior #o'ld not be tolerated. People #o'ld sho# respect and e,pect to be sho#n respect. E%eryone #o'ld be doing their personal best to help the gro'p reach decisions #hich are in the best interest of the gro'p. There #o'ld be no post'ring and ta ing sides. :onflicts #o'ld be seen as an opport'nity for gro#th- e,panding peopleBs thin ing- sharing ne# infor*ation- and de%eloping ne# sol'tions #hich incl'de e%eryoneBs perspecti%es. The gro'p #o'ld create an en%iron*ent #here e%eryone #as enco'raged to participate- conflict #as freely e,pressed- and resol'tions #ere in the best interest of e%eryone in%ol%ed.K F:.T. !a#rence .'tlerJ &t is interesting that #hen allo#ed to spea for the*sel%es- the ad%ocates of %oting espo'se si*ilar practices. 0ere is .oo chin again. Even so knowledgeable a historian of anarchism as Peter Marshall observes that, for anarchists, "the majority has no more right to dictate to the minority, even a minority of one, than the minority to the majority."5 Scores of
K

3( 8e%ol'tionary Decision7Ma ing Process 3 F)ee http://###.consens's.net/re%ol'tionary.ht*lJ

?6

libertarians have echoed this idea time and again.

What is striking abo t assertions like Marshall!s is their highly "ejorative lang age. Majorities, it wo ld seem, neither "decide" nor "debate"# rather, they "r le," "dictate," "command," "coerce" and the like. $n a free society that not only "ermitted, b t fostered the f llest degree of dissent, whose "odi ms at assemblies and whose media were o"en to the f llest e%"ression of all views, whose instit tions were tr ly for ms for disc ssion && one may reasonably ask whether s ch a society wo ld act ally "dictate" to anyone when it had to arrive at a decision that concerned the " blic welfare. '$($)* A purer case of talking (yelling) past one another could hardly be constructed. What emerges is that there are two fundamentally distinct dimensions of assessment going on, which we may call procedural and practical. Procedural assessment looks to the formal rules that are explicitly adopted by the group as governing decision-making process. Practical assessment looks to the practices of the group, and the underlying habits, psychologies, traditions, and context that support the continuation of those practices. What is striking about the debate between consensus and majority rule, then, is that each side defines the other exclusively in terms of a procedure, while defining themselves first and foremost in terms of practice.

?9

To engage in direct democracy as Bookchin defines the term requires that one vote only after a full discussion. Direct democracy is, by definition, a procedure employed by a free society that not only "ermit's*, b t foster's* the f llest degree of dissent, whose "odi ms at assemblies and whose media 'are* o"en to the f llest e%"ression of all views, whose instit tions 'are* tr ly for ms for disc ssion.+ ,hat (ookchin intends this to be a definitional tr th can be seen from the fact that he never so m ch as considers other ses of voting to be relevant to the system he is endorsing. Similarly, advocates of consens s "rocess define consens s as a "roced re that is sed by a res"ectf l comm nity of serio s dialog e, a gro " which f nctions as a for m for fair disc ssion. -sk any consens s advocate how they can endorse giving one diffic lt "erson the ability to veto every decision nless we ado"t his view and she will tell yo that s ch a thing is not consens s "rocess at all. Now in neither case are we simply asked to ignore the possibility of procedural abuse. Advocates of consensus typically describe in some detail the sorts of attitudes that are necessary in order for participants to function in the way they should, and in some cases, explain the kinds of discipline, training, facilitation, and practice that are needed for people to carry this off. Bookchin, similarly, has written about the kinds of institutions that a society needs, and the sorts of attitudes and work that people will need to bring to those institutions, in order for society to function well in genuinely democratic forums. But this merely highlights my point: the practice of the participants, their skills,

?+

habits, relations, and virtues along with the broader societal structures and institutions that engender and support these are where the action is.

2: Two case studies In this section we look at two decision-making institutions. One is a selfidentified radical organization devoted to an ideology of inclusiveness and diversity, with the goal of liberatory social change, and operating by consensus. The second is a mainstream institution an academic department with no commitment to a radical agenda, operating officially by a formal voting mechanism. My point will not be to suggest that voting leads to better behavior than does consensus, but rather to highlight some aspects of respectful practice, and to indicate just how little formal procedure has to do with the quality of human interaction that goes on. The first case in%ol%ed the Mobilization for "lobal Q'stice (M"Q)- the largest coalition of the "lobal Q'stice Mo%e*ent to arise o't of the 'prising in )eattle in ?PPP.N &n )'**er and Fall 200?- M"Q #as planning for a con%ergence and de*onstration aro'nd the ann'al *eetings of the &MF and @. in @ashington D:. ( #ide range of ed'cation- legal protest- and ci%il disobedience had been planned- generally in accord #ith the #ay these things had been going on for the past co'ple years. M"Q in D: #as a large- di%erse- and %ibrant gro'p- albeit one #hich in retrospect had t#o significantly
8

The account that follows is from personal experience. I was centrally involved in the MGJ planning process for this convergence. Though my work was primarily with the educational series associated with the protests the Peoples Summit I also attended general MGJ meetings. There are many others who have confirmed my memory of the events, though it is only fair to say that there are also those who dispute this account of what went on. For purposes of the general argument I am making here, nothing much hangs on this. You could just as well treat this as a hypothetical example of a way that consensus procedure could be abused. But I believe it is important for us to appreciate the real harm done, in the very contexts in which we work, by such abuse. And it is also important for us to develop habits of confronting efforts to so abuse our practice. I take the inclusion of a real case, rather than a hypothetical one, to be a small step along the way toward such habits.

?H

different sorts of *e*bers. 1n the one hand- a #ide range of grassroots protest- acti%istor direct action gro'ps #ere a part of M"Q. 1n the other- a n'*ber of for*al ="1s #ith paid staff too part. The attac s against ci%ilians in =e# Sor and @ashington- D: on )ept. ??- 200? ca'sed so*ething of a crisis thro'gho't the progressi%e co**'nity. :learly this #as an e%ent that had deeply affected the (*erican p'blic and nearly e%eryone realized that it changed the political conte,t in #ays that called for a re7thin ing of strategies and tactics. "oing into a cr'cial *eeting follo#ing the attac s- nearly e%ery *e*ber gro'p in M"Q #o'ld ha%e s'pported scaling bac the le%el of confrontation #ith police- *any s'pported eli*inating ci%il disobedience altogether actions- and a handf'l of ="1s fa%ored co*pletely canceling the protests. 8epresentati%es of this latter gro'p arranged to be in the position of facilitator on the day in /'estion. (fter a bit of 'nfoc'ssed disc'ssion- a proposal #as p't on the board. 3The M"Q #ill go ahead #ith its plans for protests d'ring the *eetings of the financial instit'tions4 (or so*ething %ery *'ch li e that). &**ediately- representati%es of the gro'p in fa%or of canceling the e%ent anno'nced that they #ere bloc ing this proposal. 1b2ections- arg'*ents- disc'ssion- etc. #ere *et #ith stony re2ection. The proposal #as bloc ed- and the e%ents #ere cancelled. &t #as esti*ated by those present that ro'ghly N0% of the people in attendance opposed canceling things. .'t they had no real say. There #as no real disc'ssion or response to the arg'*ents the *a2ority *ade*erely condescending lect'res on being responsible protestors- and stony ref'sal to consider the bloc .P
9

And the effects of this shameful manipulation were significant. The vacuum created by the pullout of MGJ was filled predictably by ANSWER [IAC, WWP], a significant event in the (now, apparently and thankfully, temporary) rise to prominence of this authoritarian organization. So deep were the feelings of

?K

!et 's contrast #ith this case- the general practice of a /'ite different organization- one that is not in any #ay e,plicitly radical- b't rather an acade*ic depart*ent: the depart*ent of philosophy at "eorgeto#n $ni%ersity. For the last ?+ years or so- this depart*ent- in its internal deliberations- has been a %eritable *odel of ci%ility- rationality- and respect. &t is a large depart*ent- as s'ch things go- #ith aro'nd 29 *e*bers. &t is ideologically- philosophically- and *ethodologically highly di%erse incl'ding analytic and continental philosophers- conser%ati%es- liberals- socialistscapitalist libertarians- and (one) anarchist- co**itted :atholics- and atheists.?0 =onetheless- in al*ost e%ery case- *e*bers of the depart*ent gen'inely respect one another and- in the fe# co'nter7instances- nonetheless recognize the i*portance of treating their colleag'es #ith respect and ci%ility. Disc'ssions are al#ays openintellect'ally sophisticated- and creati%e. E%eryone in the depart*ent participates in disc'ssions. "rad'ate st'dent representati%es to depart*ent *eetings- and really any other grad'ate st'dent #ith strong %ie#s on the *atter- participate f'lly and openly. =e# *e*bers /'ic ly learn that one does not try to score points- p't do#n colleag'es- ignore the arg'*ents people are *a ing- or- for that *atter- blindly endorse anyone else;s opinion. That 2'st isn;t the #ay things are done in o'r depart*ent. Proced'rally the "eorgeto#n philosophy depart*ent #or s by a %ersion of *a2ority r'le- officially follo#ing 8oberts; 8'les in disc'ssion- *a2ority %ote #hen there
hurt and betrayal by the actions on this day and subsequent defenses of them defenses that often involved character assassination and verbal abuse that MGJ in its previous form effectively disbanded. Nearly all the grassroots activists pulled out and joined other coalitions, generally with far fewer resources. Most NGOs stayed, but their subsequent protest actions and educational events were a shadow of their previous strength. It is noteworthy that one leader of the putsch in Sept. consistently defended the choice to cancel events I heard this defense four times at different forums over the next two years by saying that there had been consensus support for canceling, a use of language that can only be called Orwellian. 10 It is worth saying explicitly that I am not suggesting anything about academia at large. Few are the academic departments which function the way this one does. Many are irrational, spiteful, dogmatic, and oppressive institutions.

?N

are t#o options- and a co*plicated %ariant of *a2ority r'le #hen there are *ore options. &n reality- no one in the depart*ent no#s *'ch abo't 8oberts; 8'les- and %oting is 's'ally a rather pointless aftertho'ght. &n the first decade of *y participation- only a handf'l of %otes ended other than 'nani*o'sly- for the si*ple reason that disc'ssion al*ost al#ays led to a position that str'c e%eryone as the rational one. (nd of the fe# cases in #hich there has been a %ote- *ost ha%e been o%er#hel*ingly in one direction#ith those #ho disagreed f'lly accepting the *a2ority decision. &t is clear eno'gh that the proble* #ith #hat #ent on at M"Q #asn;t pri*arily d'e to the 'se of consens's proced're. 0ad *a2ority %ote been the proced're- the ="1s co'ld- for e,a*ple- ha%e engaged in a *ass *obilization of *e*bers. (Part of the proble* that day #as that things #ere r'shed- and these gro'ps by #ay of their paid staff and better co**'nication net#or s #ere able to prepare for the *eeting *'ch *ore /'ic ly.) &f they had done so- and t'rned o't +?% of the people at the *eeting- they co'ld still ha%e controlled the o'tco*e- in ro'ghly the sa*e *anner. &ndeed- for all .oo chin;s (correct) insistence that *a2ority r'le need not in%ol%e a tyranny of the *a2ority- dictates or co**ands- it is perfectly clear that it can in%ol%e s'ch things. There is certainly nothing in the proced'ral r'les of %oting that pre%ents this. (Thin ho# *any states are no# passing patently heterose,ist la#s. Tho'gh these are 's'ally the res'lt of legislators rather than pop'lar %otes- there is little do'bt that pop'lar %otes #o'ld t'rn o't the sa*e #ay in *ost cases. )'ch *a2ority s'pport hardly renders these la#s less repellent- or the arg'*ents behind the* less %apid.) Th's- #hate%er %irt'es the "$ philosophy depart*ent instantiates are also independent of its co**it*ent to %oting proced'res. (t least as far bac as Plato;s

?P

8ep'blic- it has been noted that #hen the proced're is *a2ority %ote- it is possible to *obilize the *ob thro'gh graft- rhetoric- fear- or other irrational *eans- so as to force decisions on the *inority that are neither #ise nor 2'st. :learly- as Plato is at pains to e*phasize- there is no essential connection bet#een #hat the *a2ority belie%es and #hat is right and 2'st. (1f co'rse there is also no s'ch connnection bet#een #hat everyone belie%es and #hat is right and 2'st. &f #e all agree- perhaps it is si*ply beca'se #e share o'r ignorance- pred2'dice- or bigotry.) 3: why consensus procedure is inherently conservative. Defenders of consens's proced're often s'ggest that the M"Q case arose beca'se of a %iolation of that proced're. )o*e s'ggest that consens's proced're properly incl'des a r'le against re7opening /'estions 'nless there is a consens's to do so. 1thers s'ggest that there #as a proble* in the for*'lation of the proposal- or the str'ct're of the debate. This is all fair- b't & thin it *isses the *ain point. & #ant to clai* that any for*al proced're can be ab'sed. .'t in this section- & foc's on consens's proced're- and offer a /'ite general abstract arg'*ent against it.?? @hile consens's decision7*a ing is typically p't for#ard as a radical alternati%e to %oting- or at least as *ore s'ited to radical or re%ol'tionary pro2ects- it t'rns o't that consens's r'les are deeply conser%ati%e in their %ery str'ct're. 8ecall that- according to consens's proced're- a proposal is for*'lated- and then it *'st recei%e 'nani*o's s'pport 5 ignoring stand7asides 5 to be adopted by the gro'p. That is- if one person opposes it- the gro'p cannot adopt it. The first proble* #ith this proced're is that it

11Though

the objection of this section is really quite obvious, so far as I know, it has not been discussed elsewhere. Given the nature of the point, I would not be surprised to learn, however, that it has been pointed out by someone Im unaware of.

20

doesn;t prescribe a proced're based on the content or *eaning of a proposal- b't rather based on arbitrary feat'res of its for*'lation. )'ppose- for e,a*ple- that a gro'p is faced #ith a sit'ation in #hich they #o'ld nor*ally engage in so*e sort of protest action. Perhaps they are an anti7#ar gro'p- and the $) has 2'st la'nched an in%asion. )ay for p'rposes of arg'*ent that all b't one of the people thin s that a protest sho'ld be heldb't one strongly opposes this for #hate%er reason. 0ere are t#o #ays to for*'late the disagree*ent. For*'lation ?: "ro'p ( endorses protesting the in%asion. "ro'p . (one person) opposes protesting the in%asion. For*'lation 2: "ro'p . (one person) endorses re*aining /'iet abo't the in%asion (doing nothing) "ro'p ( opposes re*aining /'iet abo't the in%asion. The difference bet#een these for*'lations co*es to nothing 'nder a *a2ority %oting proced're- b't is absol'tely cr'cial 'nder consens's. &f the proposal is 3!et 's hold a protest4 then the one person opposing can bloc and nothing happens. .'t if the proposal is to do nothing- then any one of the *any #ho s'pport protesting can bloc - thereby forcing a protest. =o# in a case li e this- it is probably nat'ral to thin that for*'lation ? is the right one. @hat #e need consens's for is to do things- and if #e cannot reach consens's on #hat to do- the gro'p #ill do nothing. .'t e%en if this distinction bet#een action and inaction *a es sense in all cases- it is not one that radical gro'ps sho'ld be happy assigning s'ch significance to. &sn;t it a staple of o'r analysis that inaction is a for* of

2?

actionI @hen one goes abo't one;s life and ignores political- econo*ic- c'lt'ral disp'tes- don;t #e consistently arg'e that one is thereby s'pporting the stat's /'oplaying a concrete role in eeping the syste* f'nctioningI )itting on one;s ass *ay be the right thing to do in a gi%en sit'ation- b't #e radicals al#ays insist that it is nonetheless doing something- so*ething that calls 2'st as *'ch for 2'stification as anything else. 0o# strange- then- to endorse a decision7*a ing process that essentially pri%ileges doing nothing o%er doing so*ething- for that is e,actly #hat consens's proced're is- on the c'rrent 'nderstanding. &f #e insist that the for*'lation of a proposal *'st be in the positi%e 5 a proposal to do something rather than to re*ain inacti%e 5 then #e are legislating that one strongly held opinion can pre%ent action- #hile all7b't7one;s e/'ally strongly held opinion is still ins'fficient to force action. Th's- if the earlier arg'*ent abo't the role of inaction in an instit'tionalized setting is correct- consens's process is deeply conser%ati%e- pri%ileging ac/'iescence #ith the stat's /'o far *ore than does %oting. &t sho'ld be ob%io's that *ost for*s of so7called 3*odified consens's4 aren;t any better *oti%ated. 8e/'iring T or 2/6 for a positi%e decision to be ta en still pri%ileges co*placency o%er action. $nless one goes all the #ay to a principle li e 3atte*pt to find consens's- and if that fails- %ote4 one is st'c #ith a proced're that is asy**etrical bet#een action and inaction. (nd & can see no #ay that one sho'ld e*brace s'ch asy**etry. & sho'ld e*phasize that &;* not here criticizing the distinction #ithin consens's proced're bet#een bloc s and stand7asides. This is certainly a 'sef'l distinction.

22

(Tho'gh one co'ld go f'rther. 1b%io'sly o'r opposition to %ario's proposals does not al#ays fall neatly into one of t#o categories. There is a range- e%en a *'lti7di*ensional space- of attit'des to#ards a gi%en proposal that one co'ld adopt. )'pport/stand7aside/ bloc is *ore n'anced than s'pport/oppose- b't only by a factor of 672.) @hat & ob2ect to is any proced're that isn;t sy**etrical bet#een s'pport and opposition to the proposal in /'estion. )'ppose a Palestinian solidarity gro'p is considering *a ing a state*ent affir*ing the 8ight of 8et'rn. )ay so*e people feel deeply opposed to s'ch a state*ent#hile s'pporting the goals and practices of the gro'p in other #ays- #hile others feel deeply co**itted to the essentiality of s'ch a state*ent- feeling that silence on that iss'e is an ins'lt to the *a2ority of Palestinians #ho li%e as ref'gees. @hy sho'ld either co**it*ent be *ade *ore i*portant than the other- by the %ery r'les of arg'*entI &n each case- one co'ld ha%e a deeply held *oral opposition/s'pport- #hich one tho'ght to be essential to the #ell being of the gro'p. 0o#e%er #e settle this- choosing bet#een For*'lation ?: @e #ill affir* o'r s'pport for the 8ight of 8et'rn (nd For*'lation 2: @e #ill ta e no stand on the 8ight of 8et'rn and thereby choosing to gi%e one or the other gro'p %eto po#er o%er the other- is clearly not a rational #ay to settle things. How such a deep dispute will go extended debate, creative compromise, even the group breaking up should not be settled in the abstract, much less by some legislated structure of group procedure. There is simply no way that a procedure that privileges one deep conviction over another is going to help. We have to argue. And if

26

argument fails, one group is going to have to give up on a deeply held conviction. Aside from specific arguments about the Right of Return, its political importance, the tactical issues of affirming it or remaining silent, etc., how could one possibly think to find a wise settlement. But that is exactly what Consensus rules purport to do settle such disputes formally, prior to substantive consideration of the issues. 4:Virtuous practice and the need for procedure & can #ell i*agine a defender of consens's ob2ecting to the pre%io's arg'*ent. 3:ertainly-4 they *ight agree- 3there is so*ething inherently conser%ati%e in allo#ing one person %eto po#er o%er actions. .'t that is not a fair #ay to characterize consens's process. :onsens's re/'ires that #e don;t thin of the ability to bloc as a %eto po#er a%ailable to 's #hene%er #e disagree #ith the #ay the gro'p is heading. :onsens's proced're cannot be di%orced fro* consens's practice and e%al'ated separately- and #hen #e loo to the* together #e see that bloc s are only 'sed #hen one has a deep ob2ection to the action 'nder consideration- an ob2ection that one sees as i*portant eno'gh to #arrant pre%enting the gro'p fro* acting.4 )'ch a response- ho#e%er- *isses the point for t#o reasons. First- there is still no 2'stification for the proced'ral asy**etry bet#een action and inaction. @hy not also gi%e e%eryone an 3inaction bloc 4. @hy- if & feel that failing to respond to- say- a congressional declaration deno'ncing the 8ight of 8et'rn- is deeply *orally i*per*issible- indeed inco*patible #ith the %ery point of o'r solidarity organizationsho'ld & not be able to bloc o'r doing nothingI To say that & cannot do this in principle#hile others can- in principle- bloc doing anything abo't this racist bill- is to e*brace a proced'ral conser%atis*- no *atter #hat else is pac ed into the acco'nt of practice.

29

The second proble* is that appeal to good practice as a defense of a gi%en proced're *isses the #hole point of proced're. & noted earlier that the acco'nts of practice gi%en by sophisticated defenders of consens's and %oting are re*ar ably si*ilar. (ll foc's on the need to incl'de the positions of e%eryone- to inc'lcate caref'l and critical rationality- to be open to ne# ideas- to allo# for creati%ity in the for*'lation of alternati%es- to appreciate the i*portance of reaching agree*ent- etc. &n short- there is an e*phasis in these disc'ssions on the inds of %irt'es that de*ocratic citizens *'st possess- and the inds of instit'tional habits and str'ct'res that are cond'ci%e to training ne# citizens to e*body s'ch %irt'es and to *aintain the* in the ongoing gro'p decision *a ing. Tho'gh- in this article & ha%e nothing s'bstanti%e to add to the disc'ssion of de*ocratic practice-?2 *y point is s'rely not to criticize this e*phasis. &ndeed- ho#e%er %irt'o's practice is to be spelled o't 5 and- again- for present p'rposes & #ant to ta e so*e s'ch idea for granted 5 *y *ain point is to arg'e that the 'nderstandingi*ple*entation- and *aintenance of %irt'o's practice is central to de*ocratic society. .'t at the *o*ent- & as the narro# /'estion of #hat role there is for proced're #hen people and gro'ps f'lly e*body rational- *oral- and political %irt'es. @e ha%e already arg'ed that #hen people are s'fficiently lac ing in %irt'e- neither %oting nor consens's proced're #ill help. &f a sizable percentage of the gro'p is deter*ined to ab'se proced're- then #hate%er proced're yo' choose #ill be ab'sed. .'t #hat if #e ha%e the opposite sit'ation: e%eryone is %irt'o's 5 respectf'l of others yet co**itted to arg'ing for the tr'th as they see it- listening caref'lly and

12

I have a good deal to add, both in terms of the underlying philosophical ideas and specific practices, in Awakening Reason.

2+

critically- #ell infor*ed and sharing of infor*ation- interested in #hat is best for the gro'p- its *e*bers- and society as a #hole- etcI @ell- in a sit'ation li e this- 2'st abo't any proced're #ill do. &t co'ld be the 3let !elia decide4 proced're- beca'se !elia- being %irt'o's- #on;t decide #itho't going thro'gh the #hole open and incl'si%e disc'ssion #ith her co*rades. )he #ill ta e part in the disc'ssion 5 not as a d'ty of fairness- b't o't of a desire to find the tr'th 5 and at the end of the disc'ssion- #hen the best position 5 as far as #e are able to deter*ine in this conte,t- #ith this infor*ation- gi%en o'r le%el of intellect'al s ill 5 e*erges- she #ill choose that position- as #o'ld anyone else in o'r perfect co**'nity. (nd e,actly the sa*e choice #o'ld res'lt fro* %oting- consens'setc. )o if proced're is co*pletely beside the point for f'lly %irt'o's gro'ps- and helpless in the face of highly %icio's gro'ps- #hen is it 'sef'lI @ell clearly for those gro'ps that are so*e#here in bet#een. @e rightly fall bac on proced're precisely #hen a gro'p that is generally respectf'l and non7*anip'lati%e is r'nning into local restricted diffic'lties. Perhaps one or another person is feeling a bit inti*idated and is not participating. Perhaps there is a disagree*ent that #e are not resol%ing by arg'*ent. Perhaps so*eone is not bothering to do their ho*e#or before entering into disc'ssion. &n a case li e these- there is a point to engaging in so*e sort of reasonably #ell defined proced're to atte*pt to deal #ith the proble* 5 go aro'nd the roo* and as e%eryone to spea before others do- accept that *o%ing for#ard is i*portant and agree to %ote- *a e 'p a list of the things that people are responsible for st'dying before the *eeting. T#o points are clear- ho#e%er. First- #hile reasoned debate- respectf'l disc'ssion- and other aspects of practice are intrinsically %al'able to this process- the

2H

point of proced'res is p'rely instr'*ental. @e adopt proced'res as a prag*atic tool for getting aro'nd a concrete proble* in the co'rse of o'r disc'ssions. =ot only *'st #e see proced're as instr'*entally prag*atic- b't #e *'st also recognize a second point: that the 'sef'lness of any proced're #ill %ary #idely #ith conte,t. )ince there e,ists an enor*o's range of #ays that things can go #rong in a gro'p- #e ha%e no reason to find one all7p'rpose proced're to fall bac on 5 3#ell #e try to disc'ss- b't if that fails- #e %ote4- b't #hyI Maybe #hat is called for is a go7aro'nd in #hich e%eryone tries to co*e 'p #ith a possible resol'tion ne%er before *entioned- or #e go ho*e and cool off- or #e bring in a facilitator- or #e read a rele%ant boo - or so*e of 's stand aside- or #e di%ide into t#o gro'ps- or *erge #ith a larger one- etc. Each of these co'ld be a perfectly reasonable proced'ral response to a partic'lar sort of proble*. Th's- #hat #e need is not a procedure- *'ch less an identification of good process #ith s'ch a proced're- b't a #ell stoc ed tool it of #ays to deal #ith the sorts of diffic'lties that co*e 'p #ithin generally #ell7f'nctioning- b't fallible gro'ps. (nd e%en *ore- #e need #ell s illed crafts*an to 'se those tools. Q'st as so*e are s illed in percei%ing psychological sy*pto*s- others at constr'cting e,peri*ental designs- and still others at de%eloping co*ple, political strategies- there are those #ho ha%e honed a serio's s ill at *obilizing proced'ral tools to deal #ith the sorts of brea do#ns that beset disc'rsi%e co**'nities. These are the people #e call facilitators- *ediators- or trainers. (nd #e sho'ld *a e 'se of the*. 1f co'rse this is not to say that #e defer to facilitators 5 *indlessly follo# their g'idance regarding process 5 any*ore than #e sho'ld defer to a for*al proced're. .'t if it see*s to the gro'p that so*eone is a 'sef'l facilitator 5 that is- that they can help 's by g'iding 's in the i*ple*entation of a range of conte,t'ally

2K

'sef'l proced'res 5 #e sho'ld ta e ad%antage of that. : !ractical endorsement of conte"tual procedures @hen the gro'p co*es to the %ie# that the *ost i*portant thing is a decisione%en tho'gh disc'ssion is not *o%ing to#ards consens's on any partic'lar decision- one fall7bac is to reach consens's on the appropriateness of %oting. )'ch a decision sho'ld al#ays be seen as a recognition of so*e sort of fail're. (ss'*ing that the choice is s'bstanti%e- then one decision is- in reality- the better one. )o the fact that #e cannot find perceptions- considerations- arg'*ents- data and the li e that s'pports one or the other is a sign that #e are arg'ing badly- are *issing so*ething- are not in possession of ade/'ate data- or that so*e of 's are not being reasonable. .'t still- s'ch inds of things happen in the cr'sh of real7#orld circ'*stances- and #hen they do- #e so*eti*es decide /'ite fairly- to %ote. &f #e do so decide- then the arg'*ent of section 2 *eans that o'r proced're sho'ld be sy**etrical. Th's- #hile it need not be as si*ple as *a2ority %ote- the proced're #ill be closer- in s'ch a circ'*stance- to %oting than to consens's proced're. .'t & #ant to 'rge that it is *isleading- nonetheless- to thin of this as an endorse*ent of %oting o%er consens's. .y #ay of ill'stration- let *e recall a partic'lar decision ta en by the "eorgeto#n philosophy depart*ent. 1n the day in /'estion #e had a highly disp'ted decision before 's for #hich there #as no possible co*pro*ise. That is- this #as the sort of decision for #hich there #ere e,actly t#o options. (nd the depart*ent ca*e into the *eeting strongly di%ided. "ro'p ( felt that accepting the proposal before 's #as right and i*portant for the f't're of the depart*ent. "ro'p . felt that re2ecting the sa*e decision

2N

#as e/'ally i*portant. (nd so- #e disc'ssed the *atter. @e arg'ed- bac and forthbro'ght 'p ne# considerations- laid o't #ays of thin ing abo't the iss'e- creati%ely tried to relate the decision to other ones #e had *ade- to conte,t'alize the iss'e #ithin the broader goals of the depart*ent- etc. < for se%eral ho'rs. (nd %ery fe# *inds #ere changed. )ensing that #e #ere *a ing little progress- the chair finally called for a %ote. (nd the *otion passed- so*ething li e ?H 5 N- #here'pon #e prepared to lea%eass'*ing the chair #o'ld pass this decision on to the dean. .efore #e co'ld do so- the leading %oice in "ro'p ( 5 the #inning gro'p 5 stopped 's. 3@ait-4 she said.?6 3&;%e ne%er seen 's adopt an i*portant decision #ith s'ch a split %ote. &t *ay not be o'r r'le- b't it is o'r practice to disc'ss things 'ntil #e arri%e at a %ie# #e all respect. (nd #e al#ays ta e acco'nt of e%eryone;s concerns. & #orry that the *inority are going to feel b'llied here- and so thin #e sho'ld disc'ss this *ore.4 Tho'gh not thrilled to ha%e to stay longer- e%eryone i**ediately heeded the call and res'*ed their chairs. @here'pon the leading %oice of the losing gro'p said 3(bsol'tely not. @e *ade o'r arg'*ents- ga%e o'r reasons. (s al#ays- e%eryone listened- too 's serio'sly- and #e failed to con%ince yo'. )o & #ill not hear of re7opening the iss'e. @e ha%e a case #here #e disagree and a strong *a2ority of the depart*ent thin s one #ay. The only reasonable thing for any of 's to s'pport in s'ch a case is that %ote as #e find it.4 @hat #ent on here: *a2ority %oting- or consens'sI &t is ob%io'sly *isleading to characterize things either #ay. @e fo'nd no consens's on the iss'e at hand- b't #e e/'ally did not si*ply %ote. 8ather- #e reached a consens's in fa%or of going #ith the *a2ority position. @e recognized that o'r collecti%e rationality- o'r gro'p %irt'e- #as
13

Roughly. This is not an exact quote, but closely captures what was said.

2P

ins'fficient to reach a consens's on the iss'e at hand- and therefore *ade 'se of a for*al %oting proced're. .'t o'r local fail're spar ed an e,pression of a deeper str'ct'ral ind of %irt'e 5 both %irt'e on the part of each participant- and a collecti%e %irt'e e*bedded in the habits of disco'rse a*ong the*. (nd it #as precisely this ind of %irt'e #hich #as *issing in the Mobilization for "lobal Q'stice. 8ather than carry on respectf'l and caref'l disc'ssion 'ntil #e fo'nd consens's- if not on #hat to do- at least on #hat proced're to e*ploy- a s*all *inority forced the *echanical application of one partic'lar proced're do#n the throats of the *a2ority on the gro'nds that it had been adopted earlier. &n the conte,t of s'ch social %ice- it #as no consolation #hatsoe%er that the proced're had a happy na*e li e 3consens's4. #: $ontentious concluding remar%s )o #here are #eI Tho'gh &;%e hardly arg'ed in detail for s'ch grand clai*s- & 'rge that a n'*ber of concl'sions are *ade pla'sible by the foregoing disc'ssion. ( ey goal of any anarchist strategy *'st be the de%elop*ent of disc'rsi%esocial- and rational %irt'e in each other. (ny %iable anarchist society *'st instit'tionalize things li e schools- disc'ssion for'*s- and critical process disc'ssions- #hich #ill allo# 's to for* and *aintain s'ch %irt'es in o'rsel%es. The only f'lly de*ocratic #ay to reach a decision is to ha%e a disc'ssion the end of #hich is a consens's on #hat is the right decision. &f o'r local lac of %irt'e pre%ents a f'lly de*ocratic decision7*a ing practice in 60

a partic'lar case- there are any n'*ber of proced'ral r'les- and people s illed at applying s'ch r'les- to #hich #e *ight t'rn in atte*pting to deal #ith the proble*. &f #e find that #e need to *a e a decision- b't cannot reach consens's on #hat the right decision is- #e sho'ld by all *eans gi%e sy**etrical a'thority to both action and inaction. There is no gro'nds for pri%ileging one o%er the other in the abstract. (1f co'rse #e *ight agree that in this case either ca'tion or action is to be pri%ileged d'e to partic'lar factors.) &f #e cannot co*e to consens's on a gi%en iss'e- then the iss'e beco*es ho# to *a e a decision- and consens's is de*anded on this. Tho'gh #e #ill li ely %otes'ch a proced're can only be 2'st on the basis of a rationally and *orally arri%ed at consens's on the appropriateness of %oting in this case. Coting is often the right proced're to t'rn to- and far *ore li ely to be proced'rally correct than is consens's proced're- b't #hate%er a'thority %oting proced're has #ill deri%e fro* consens's practice. This all see*s to point to a partic'lar practical reco**endation for anyone ai*ing to for* an anarchist organization: do not #rite do#n any proced're as part of the defining str'ct're of the gro'pR (ny proced're yo' try to legislate is as li ely to be ab'sed- as li ely to gi%e people a cr'tch to lean on- or an e,c'se to a%oid caref'l thin ing- disc'ssion- and incl'si%e labor. =o proced're g'arantees #ise decision *a ing- and a #ide %ariety of proced'res can be 'sef'l in arri%ing at #ise decisions. )o do not pri%ilege one o%er another in the abstract. &f yo' *'st ha%e a constit'tion-

6?

say 3o'r gro'p #ill atte*pt to ta e each other serio'sly- to loo at iss'es rationally- to engage in caref'l- respectf'l- critical- rigoro's analysis and arg'*ent- and to arri%e at the #isest and *ost 2'st decisions on all iss'es before 's.4 &f yo' need to say *ore than this- then say *'ch *ore. )ay that a*ong the tools #e #ill 'se in trying to arri%e at s'ch 2'st and #ise decisions are < and then initiate and e%er7gro#ing list of 'sef'l techni/'es. (bo%e all- re*e*ber that constit'tions- li e the r'les they record- are no better than the people #ho i*ple*ent the*. )o the tas is 2'st as *'ch to *a e better %ersions of o'rsel%es as it is to *a e better %ersions of society.

62