File spoon-archives/postanarchism.archive/postanarchism_2003/postanarchism.0311, message 55


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.

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005