joshred
Forum Coordinator
Media/PR Member Facilitation & Logistics Member
Posts: 242
|
Post by joshred on Oct 24, 2011 16:01:37 GMT -5
First, this is an awesome discussion. I was unaware of a specific instance Ben and Hezzie are discussing, so my posts aren't meant to address that specifically. My posts pertain to the initial subject of the thread, "blocks are being abused".
If anyone is of the position that blocks are not being abused they should say so. Otherwise, the discussion should be how to determine whether a block is abusive, how to facilitate an abusive block, and how to prevent GA participants from abusing blocks. I have so more to add but I'm typing this on my phone and I don't feel I can give this subject the attention it deserves. Particularly, the legitimacy of blocking based on a strongly held personal point of view. Summarily, if I'm vegan and I block all non-vegan activities that is wrong, however if I block because the activity excludes vegans from participating that's legitimate. If a Muslim blocked the pigroast because we wouldn't accommodate a halal diet, I think that's fine. The GA would have to modify the proposal to accommodate them. Ideally, this would never arise as a blocking concern because it would be ironed out through debate prior to blocks taking place.... OK I'm just typing stream of consciousness thought that I need to spend more time working through. I'm going to stop until I'm in front of a computer.
|
|
Emma
New Member
Facilitation & Logistics Arts & Music Member Kids Stuff
Posts: 215
|
Post by Emma on Oct 24, 2011 16:19:43 GMT -5
Josh - funny, but I think through that paragraph you really hit the nail on the head. Previous discussion is needed to hash out forseeable issues & get educated to answer questions. Blokcs based on personal views are not constructive, while blocks based on the proposal excluding people (whether it's yourself or someone else) are pointing to an issue that is counter to the needs of the group in an important way. I'm beginning to agree with Mikerancourt about how blocks should be defined. It's not the definition that's being used by OWS and other related movements (at least it's not how they describe it in their literature) but it seems more constructive and more in line with the other values of the movement. Unfortunately I think Joshred may be right that we'd have to have it out with teh GA about the use of blocks at this point in order to change the definition. Oy. Ugh. Gah! And yet, that's what this is about, isn't it?
|
|
shage
New Member
Arts & Music Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by shage on Oct 24, 2011 18:21:13 GMT -5
Important thread and lots of good points being raised.
"Ideally, this would never arise as a blocking concern because it would be ironed out through debate prior to blocks taking place"
I think this is a key point. Proposals are coming fast and furious to the GA, they are in many cases quite specific, and the group has barely had any time to coalesce, or even feel out the facilitation process.
Because the proposals are so specific, there are naturally a lot of folks who want to speak to various aspects of the proposal. Most of us are unfamiliar with consensus, having been raised and worked all our lives in authoritarian type systems. We are to forgive ourselves for all these mistakes as part of growing pains.
However, this is my read on the situation-
-contentious proposals are being brought to GA that raise all kinds of questions that have not been addressed beforehand because people don't know each other yet.
-while these proposals may be time sensitive, they are certainly not critical to the life support of OA. It is more important that you give yourselves time to get to know each other, and make sure you are reaching the broadest audience possible with the consensed decisions.
-Instead what is happening is people are getting *attached* to their proposals and trying really hard to get them through. seems something like a confirmation bias is getting into place, and we are having difficulty separating personalities from proposals. That is natural, but I urge everyone interested in the endurance of this movement to give it consideration.
As a result of this attachment to a proposal and people really wanting too much to see the proposal pass (taking it as a personal failure as it doesn't), the GA is being approached incorrectly. GA is a means of discovering the consensus of the group and as such should be a celebration of inclusivity and solidarity.
What I see at OA thus far is the reverse of that. We end up focusing on our personalities and differences. And that is a direct result of the type of proposals being brought and the manner in which they are being addressed. As a result I see GA's going on too long and the wind coming out of a lot of people's sails.
I don't mean to be negative, but I am hoping by sharing my observations on this we can reach a positive result.
tl, dr: My action recommendation to Facilitation and all concerned members of OA is thus:
1) Think deeply on what really needs to be a consensed proposal of the whole GA before bringing it to a meeting. Things can be announcements, autonomous/WG actions, etc instead of full proposals. Anything with any hint of being divisive should strongly be considered for not being brought as a proposal. Otherwise what you end up with is the GA dividing you and frustrating folks.
2) Vet proposals prior to GA. Have members of WG's circulate among other WG's, general meeting places to get quick reads on how people feel about particular proposals. See if you can address concerns about proposals prior to bringing them to a GA.
3) If a proposal is bringing a lot of concerns and blocks (however 'abusive' or unjustified we personally may feel them to be) at GA, strongly consider checking our personal preference and withdrawing the proposal pending more work, and talk with people outside GA to work out the issues. Don't make GA's long and frustrating trying to push something through that day. Don't interpret a proposal not passing at one Ga as a (personal) failure. Nothing that happens at GA is a failure, if we keep clearly in mind that it is about determining what we stand for as a group, not about getting our personal dream movement. also, Perhaps there is an irony, in that the only way to get your personal dream movement, is to forget your personal dream movement sometimes and not advocate so hard for it, and occasionally submit your preferences to the will of what the group determines to be best for itself as a community.
Ultimately: What we have here is I think, a sort of male problem with wanting to see action, getting ourselves personally attached to our ideas for the group. Seeing as we come from a pretty male-oriented system it's not surprising to me that this is a difficulty with jumping into this process cold for many of us. However really 'wanting' something that reflects us personally, That's not the point of the GA and we will either collectively learn that or OA will fall apart. This applies *equally* to proposals and blocks. (note: I don't mean this male attitude to be a specific criticism of anyone, or of males in particular, as I think females are also pushed in our society to learn to argue and use power in male ways. also, it's not that male traits are always bad, so much as badly in need of a balance, which a consensus process seeks to provide.)
Remember that GA is about seeking the collective expression of the group. That means there are probably a lot of things it can't do. That doesn't mean that individuals and subgroups working out of OA can't do those things, nor that they can't invite others to participate in those things at the GA.
IMO At this point you should be saving group consensus for things that directly concern the lifeblood of the group, ie. how to live together and behave at the park, and how to grow. Actions and statements should be somewhat looser...otherwise it feels like (and many are starting to understand occupy as) just another bunch of lefties. That is how the media is trying to portray this, because they are well aware of the danger of a group coming together to actually represent the interests of the 99%, which are real. Try not to play into political and divisive stuff. I see no reason why facilitators can't step in when a conversation is going on and on at GA and say, sorry WG take this back to the drawing board and bring it back as something more likely to reach consensus. So far the OA facilitators (bless their souls) seem to be erring on the side of keeping discussions going, probably not wanting people to feel cut off. But remember the purpose is to bring us together. if a proposal isn't accomplishing that, why not kick it back for more work?
Final point, really. N.B. It seems like you need someone to take and post minutes of all GA's. Seems a little loose with some folks having to rely on memory of what they think gained consensus. Minutes need to be taken, posted, and independently verified. You gotta get serious about keeping documentation if you want to go anywhere.
I know people are impatient to see action and change, so are we all. but we need to not let that cause us to slip into the typical male dominated habits of impatience and personally advocating for our preferences and using proposals and blocks as power tools and divisive items. Otherwise you're missing the true power of what consensus can offer, I think in that case the movement will end up a lot smaller, less influential as it's painted as another politics as usual group, when in fact you have something really special and unique to offer here.
We all need to radically reconsider how we are using GA, proposals and blocks if the true power of the 99% and this process is to shine through. I hope you stick with it and we all see that happen, because it would be truly remarkable.
P.S. I will fess up and say that I have withdrawn a lot of my direct energy from OA for the time being in frustration with how specific and divisive the proposals and GA's have been, and their length. I don't feel like a GA of this many people is the right forum for trying to feel out these differences, and it upsets me when i hear the people's mic being used and you can just hear the enthusiasm draining out of people's voices when they have to repeat certain things that are part of a debate that would be better addressed or resolved outside of GA. I have mixed feelings about my standing aside to observe in the time being, but it is what it is, and don't know whether that means you should take my observations more or less seriously. If there is some interest in utilizing this input, I would be glad to invest more energy and even get involved in facilitation WG.
|
|
Dan L
New Member
Facilitation & Logistics Member
Feed the Hungry - Heal the Sick - Clothe the Naked - Comfort the Distressed
Posts: 25
|
Post by Dan L on Oct 24, 2011 19:24:09 GMT -5
To the heart of things: We're having a problem because we're talking about blocks as being a serious moral and ethical objection, But To What?
If we are focused on this objection as relating to how our own ethics come into play in terms of consensus (or how we imagine people's ethics to work), we're likely always going to come to an impasse. Blocks will happen because we will not have everyone agree on ethical frameworks. Blocks lack usefulness to consensus.
However, if blocks are focused on serious ethical or moral objections because they fundamentally prevent us from assembling as a body, people having their voices heard or participating in the process, blocks can be useful to us and to consensus.
Blocks are almost not the issue here. I think blocks are just the site where we've had to talk about what is is we are trying to articulate and what it is we are supposed to be protecting when we're making proposals and doing the process. I would advocate that blocks be focused on that portion of the process- does the proposal prevent people from being a part of and represented in the process? This may bring us closer to a workable understanding of blocks, collaboration and consensus rather than this currently dangerous thing that keeps us from sticking (and thus focusing) on our differences rather than what we can rally around.
|
|
Emma
New Member
Facilitation & Logistics Arts & Music Member Kids Stuff
Posts: 215
|
Post by Emma on Oct 24, 2011 21:23:34 GMT -5
Loving this conversation folks!
|
|
|
Post by mikerancourt on Oct 24, 2011 21:33:36 GMT -5
We actually did discuss these things at the facilitation WG meeting today, and we made a change. We are now describing blocking as an action taken when an assembly member perceives a proposal to be in conflict with the goals or interests of the collective. In addition, we talked about how we have failed to adequately address nonblocking concerns in the discussion portion of considering a proposal and stand-asides in the consensus portion. Today's meeting, while smaller and not dealing with many complicated proposals, went much more smoothly. A number of people expressed concerns about proposals which turned into modifications and plans for follow-up outside the assembly. In addition, a number of people stood aside on proposals, though they declined to express their reasoning. I think these are very, very important aspects of the process that the facilitation team had been neglecting. Thanks for bringing this up on the forum. I think it will help the process and the collective, in general. Undoubtedly, there will still be difficulties with the process, and you should feel free to bring up criticism of the facilitation team in any way you feel comfortable. Thanks.
|
|
Emma
New Member
Facilitation & Logistics Arts & Music Member Kids Stuff
Posts: 215
|
Post by Emma on Oct 24, 2011 23:21:14 GMT -5
yay!
|
|
demodave
New Member
Facilitation & Logistics member
Posts: 21
|
Post by demodave on Oct 25, 2011 1:11:07 GMT -5
ALl this discussion is awesome and it sounds like everyone's making great progress so THANK YOU. (I'm out of town during the week so observing via the boards at this point). The one thing I'd throw out there is, and maybe this isn't properly put to the facilitiation WG, but still, for me at least, I'm not nearly as interested in the various proposals we try to hash out as I am in trying to collectively figure out an agenda and way forward. What is this movement about? Who are we? What are we going to do? As yet there doesn't seem to be much collective procedure devoted to that. Jeez we don't even have an agenda WG! But what I mean is, and maybe this can be incorporated into the assemblies some, maybe more organized discussions, breaking people down into groups with a topic, then mixing the groups up, and so on. In the assemblies, if it is a meaty contentious issue, break people up to discuss it, have them appoint a rep, put the reps on stack, something like that. But more generally throughout the occupation, instead of everyone just milling around, assign big blocks of time for people to be randomly broken into groups & discuss --- who are we, why are we here, what do we want to do, what's frustrating us, inspiring us, etc --- and maybe not all of those things at once but for this hour discuss x, then y, then z? There could at least be places set up, where people were invited to step in, and if the group got too large, subdivided, etc, where the idea would be to discuss certain set topics, whatever. Idk. Then yes maybe have significant assembly time NOT devoted to proposals but rather relaying all the cross-pollinated discussion of the day and idk just... sharing where we were at & where we might like to go... no need for debates & points of process & blocks... just talking. Anyways I'd def second what was said above --- perhaps better to keep the whole proposal procedure to pragmatic things that have to be decided and let the rest of it slide for real. Don't even bring it up. I'd also second the suggestion to stay away from statements and stick more to actions, preferrably more generic symbolic ones. I near blocking level concern whenever someone wants to drag me in to supporting some outside group or technical financial policy. I may not know enough about either to willy nilly hand over my approval. And I don't see the need to delve into it either. I'm not sure if it's a blocking situation, but it's close, because, how do I know? I mean if I knew more I might block, right? And why am I being asked to decide? Another concern related to that is, idk, inadvertent assembly shopping? I mean it seems like the process right now is the WG keeps coming back until the assembly consents, but, especially with different people there at different times, it seems possible that even an outvoted and heavily blocked proposal could eventually find a consenting assembly. Especially being out of town during the week I'm not too keen on that possibility (though I concede that those who are there day in day out deserve more of a say). Just seems like another reason to set that kind of stuff aside though. I mean people are free to do whatever --- do they need the whole group's name on it? I'm not sure about the fn Robin Hood tax yet ok... is that so wrong!?!? So I REALLY like the idea of anything not oriented to the basic maintenance of occupation being kept out of the proposal procedure altogether, until we can get a better handle on who the f we are. Again it seems like these things go together --- more (organized directed) discussion, less end-game implementation this soon. Anyways it's so amazingly awesome to see everyone addressing the problems and working through it. I got kindof discouraged at points this weekend, but seeing this thread has me feeling good again. THANK YOU ALL!!!!
|
|
benbrucato
New Member
Occupation Member
We are practicing "a politics and a life that are yet to be entirely thought." (Agamben)
Posts: 261
|
Post by benbrucato on Oct 25, 2011 9:10:06 GMT -5
The writing was on the wall (literally) in May 1968: "Take revolution seriously, but don’t take yourself seriously."
|
|
shage
New Member
Arts & Music Member
Posts: 94
|
Post by shage on Oct 25, 2011 10:52:40 GMT -5
word to that, and a deep second to this idea from the prior post:
"ore generally throughout the occupation, instead of everyone just milling around, assign big blocks of time for people to be randomly broken into groups & discuss"
I'm a relatively introverted person and not much of a mingler, so I didn't really wind up getting into a deep conversation with anyone during the unstructured part after GA. But if we set up a time to all meet in random rotating groups, I would have participated in that, and i think making that a regular part of the OA activities would foster community and consensus.
From what I saw after GA, it seemed like people were either breaking into groups of preexisting friends or outgoing people perhaps doing some circulating. A lot of folks want to celebrate or hold up a sign and get some honk juice energy from the street and there's nothing wrong with any of that. But I think to looking long term and achieving a larger community, defining goals and accomplishing them, something like this would be very helpful.
|
|
hz
New Member
PR Member
Posts: 188
|
Post by hz on Oct 25, 2011 22:39:28 GMT -5
Just reading through the rest of these posts now.
Wow you guys are awesome. I am loving the posts. Thanks for taking time to listen and debate and find inspired solutions. So empowering to know there are such articulate and generous minds guiding the facilitation process.
--------------
(later) Ah, I just realized how gushing that sounds, but accurate nonetheless.
|
|