From: textured-AT-riseup.net Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 19:25:27 -0800 Subject: [postanarchism] Re: postanarchism-digest V1 #111 >the superiority of democratic vs. consensus process in larger and more formal groups (as opposed to the small, informal conviviality of friendship, love, and "affinity"), yeah, in my last post i was assuming this to be true. although, i dont think that the distinction between consensus and democracy fully captures the numerous potential differences between institutional structures. instead of talking about consensus per se, i would put it back into the problematic of transversality -- the interplay of instrumentality and desire which form an institutional assemblage. any type of social dynamic (from a marriage to a commune to the management of data or the governance of a population) engages with an institutional structure (codification, instrumentality). the question is whether these structures are acknowledged or not. consensus theory does a good job, generally, of acknowledging and appropriating whatever institutional structures are operating in any given dynamic. this appropriation is an empowering and essential process in any anarchist experiment. as of yet, the argument over homo-/hetero-geneity has limited the concept of difference to an ethical stance apropos the function of institutions. the assumption is that differences and similarities are the effects of an institution - that there are two forms of institutionalization possible: one that favors homogeneity and one that favors heterogeneity. thats a pretty limited typology of the institution. it already assumes the dominance of instrumentality and the managerial control of desire: either we can decide to 'promote' difference (ie encourage "separations" or "strongly independent identifications" or whatever) or we can choose to 'foster' unity and solidiarity (which is really just another way of skirting the issue). any differences are institutional differences. and the only way to destroy hierarchy is to attack the various *types* of institutions which repress desire in favor of instrumentality. the critique of consensus taken up by chantal&mouffe and mueller and koch works by creating reductive typologies of the institution such that 'consensus' becomes reified as a type. consensus is not a type of institution. it is the anarchist process of opening up of the rigid typology that is preoccupied with polarizing 'homogeneous' and 'heterogeneous'. many consensus-run groups can operate differently and be effective. >including his argument from the need to preserve heterogeneity ("dissensus," as he calls it) dissensus can come up very quickly in a sonsensus process because any one memeber can veto a vote. however the idea is that a veto is a pretty serious breakdown of the group and should rarely ever take place. if it does it means that there is a serious disagreement that might break up the group or that the process wasnt done very well. a lot of times people will try to push things to a vote very quickly, creating a veto. i think a lot of times people realize what they are doing and a veto vote basically sabotages the process. it is an individualistic impulse: either someone is impatient and want to end the meeting or they are scared of not getting what they personally want or intimidated by the libidinal investment that consensus requires from the group... >first of all, it is hard to argue that consensus decision-making processes are a product of the enlightenment. the enlightenment spurred the development of democratic processes, not consensus-based ones. good point. >indeed, consensus processes don't have a very old pedigree in anarchist history either yeah. i too would love to learn more about the quakers and consensus. and also the religious concept of political unity. its weird that consensus became mystified along these lines. any visit to a real consensus meeting should dispell those assumptions. in fact i think there is more arguing and debating in connsensus meetings than in a meeting where it only takes a majority vote. if you know you have the majority then you dont care about convincing the last few people. but in consensus anyone can veto. -daniel.
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005