💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › SPUNK › sp000882.txt captured on 2022-04-29 at 02:40:34.
⬅️ Previous capture (2022-03-01)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Process is Necessary but Not Sufficient:
A Consideration of the Circle Pines Conference in Michigan, 18-20 Nov 94.
--by Crafty
Abstract
The conference came from a need to grasp and solve problems which
threaten the longevity and efficacy of various anarchist groups or projects,
and was to be a way of making these problems visible and discussable. It met
with mixed success. Group problems must be seen in larger scope than
what the conference offered.
Technique is Not Enough
The conference focussed mostly on aspects of group activity that I call
technical skills. These went under the general heading of "group
process/dynamics/roles," and came out in practice as workshops on the use of
consensus and on roles people might take in groups. These workshops were
followed up in small discussion sections ("mini-collectives").
A severe, but subtle, shortcoming of the conference was its framing
of group difficulties and survivability problems as matters of technique.
Even in my discussion section, where the stated topics collapsed and
gave way to self-selection, people remained within the orbit of technique
and did not offer fundamentally different types of reasons for why groups
fail. Causes other than "unhealthy group process" seemed so far from
the scope of the conference that I did not care to make an issue of it.
Dysfunctional group processes no doubt exist, and are usually
conspicuous in the downfall of any group. But the story of how a group comes
to eventual ruin is always both more involved and more particular than
a simple reduction to the effect of "bad internal dynamics." That's just too
easy to say. It excuses the ex-group from harder and more frightening
questions of its motivating agenda and reason-for-being.
My fundamental belief about group process is that people will
self-organize and act to solve, or at least isolate, their internal
problems if it's worth their while. This is a big If, bigger than any
catalogue of roles and methods. Sound techniques for organizing and
getting along in groups are of course indispensable. But they will not save a
group that is doomed for basically existential reasons. Internal troubles
are a group's executioner, not its judge.
Identity Conflict is Not a "Process Issue"
Also on the agenda was the topic of "isms." For purposes of the
conference this was framed as identity-based conflicts which "foster an
inability to follow process" and was thus allied with technical issues. But I
think the identity question deserves more comprehensive treatment than just
discussing its effect on "cohesion" and "established process."
An "isms discussion," in my observation, is always hectic because its
basic modes of conflict go unexamined. It's too easy (as usual) to call it a
clash between "racism and equality", "sexism and equality", etc.
Realistically, it's a multi-faceted struggle between different concepts of
group organization and different motives for participating in a group in the
first place, as well as the various forms of identity-based conflict (which
I have no interest in referring to as isms).
I can't say much concretely about this part of the conference since I
backed out after fifteen minutes, thinking I knew where its trajectory would
take it. Just to summarize my stance, I am becoming less and less sympathetic
to the "breaking down barriers" view, in which group identities are real but
manufactured by an oppressor class to keep people divided. I see identities as
more self-existent than that. I'm inclined to take the barriers
(ie differences) for granted, and work more towards alliance between discrete
independent factions instead of unification into "the collective."
Conclusion
The most positive end effect of this conference would be: People
realize that group process is an important but at best partial influence on
making or breaking a group. They prioritize clarity of their groups' goals and
reason-to-be over any particular doctrine of process, and thereby retain the
flexibility to choose processes that best serve their goals.
The worst thing would be this: People accept the discussion of process
as somehow definitive of why groups fail, and suffer a double blow if their
own group collapses despite having learned sound technical skills.
I anticipate the result will fall somewhere in the middle of the
spectrum. My intent is to deflect it as far as possible to the better end,
and I hope to develop this thought more extensively in a future piece which
will be less specific to the conference itself.
Having been to a small handful of gatherings, I'm more or less
reconciled that informal networking is the main value of the events. I'll
probably continue to go for that reason, if nothing else. And for lessons
in vegan cooking.
28 Nov 94