We clearly need some modifications to the consensus decision making process to prevent one person, or a faction, from taking over. Even Reclaiming's excellent consensus process was allowed to be dominated by one aggressive man with an agenda, and manipulated by his followers, for the 2010 and 2012 general gatherings. D. wanted a language change to Reclaiming's Principles of Unity, and like the guy who appointed himself as our co-op house's "leader" (his words), it was absolutely clear from the start that D. was going to get what he wanted. He stacked the gatherings with his followers and people he knew agreed with him. He repeatedly ignored the raise your hand to be called on rule in 2010 and dominated, like he always had been allowed to by Reclaiming witch camp teachers, since 1992. Because he obviously was so in favor with the leadership and had followers, the 2010 facilitators were afraid to make him follow the hand raising rule. The facilitators at both years' gatherings repeatedly didn't manage to notice people who had their hands up for long periods of time, patiently waiting to speak. Instead, they called on other people who were for the change and who had already spoken more times than their fair share. Though some of this ignoring of certain raised hands may have been unconscious, this is a total subversion of the consensus process. It's cheating. So was the organizers' many choices on newsprint placed on the floor in the middle of 2010's circle of about 70 people. There were many choices for language changes, but no choice for no language change for us to affirm by drawing a heart. This is called stacking the deck when someone tries to cheat at cards. Even being asked to silently "twinkle" our fingers in the air instead of clapping in agreement with someone's statement can be used to stifle dissent. Sure, twinkling takes less time than clapping, but it's also a way to forbid any emotional expression. Finally, one of the people who was allowed to speak the most and influence decision making at the 2010 gathering's meetings had almost no exposure to Reclaiming. During a trance journey in our opening ritual, this self-described "roaming activist" called out a vision of "The White House in flames!" And she didn't mean symbolically burning down the Obama White House. Reclaiming is all about non-violence. New people need to be instructed to shut up, watch and listen for a year before being allowed to speak at major decision making meetings for a national or international group like Reclaiming.
I experienced this consensus decision making issue with Occupy Portland, when I lived in Portland, Oregon. I attended a march that had been organized, but I didn't know anyone, I just showed up because I supported the cause and wanted to learn more. On this day it was raining a bit and the march was long. We ended up at a public square on PSU campus and I heard some speakers. Well then I guess they decided to hold a meeting which involved decision making, and it was a four-hour meeting! Because they wanted consensus from the whole crowd, which was at least 50 people. Honestly I was confused trying to follow it all, wet and miserable, and the whole thing turned me off to protesting for several years. Looking back, I don't know why they tried to exercise a consensus decision making practice with a bunch of people who just showed up to protest. We weren't trained, or educated, and didn't sign up for a long and onerous meeting.
I'm a protester now, though! I found different actions where I fit in better and found my people.
We clearly need some modifications to the consensus decision making process to prevent one person, or a faction, from taking over. Even Reclaiming's excellent consensus process was allowed to be dominated by one aggressive man with an agenda, and manipulated by his followers, for the 2010 and 2012 general gatherings. D. wanted a language change to Reclaiming's Principles of Unity, and like the guy who appointed himself as our co-op house's "leader" (his words), it was absolutely clear from the start that D. was going to get what he wanted. He stacked the gatherings with his followers and people he knew agreed with him. He repeatedly ignored the raise your hand to be called on rule in 2010 and dominated, like he always had been allowed to by Reclaiming witch camp teachers, since 1992. Because he obviously was so in favor with the leadership and had followers, the 2010 facilitators were afraid to make him follow the hand raising rule. The facilitators at both years' gatherings repeatedly didn't manage to notice people who had their hands up for long periods of time, patiently waiting to speak. Instead, they called on other people who were for the change and who had already spoken more times than their fair share. Though some of this ignoring of certain raised hands may have been unconscious, this is a total subversion of the consensus process. It's cheating. So was the organizers' many choices on newsprint placed on the floor in the middle of 2010's circle of about 70 people. There were many choices for language changes, but no choice for no language change for us to affirm by drawing a heart. This is called stacking the deck when someone tries to cheat at cards. Even being asked to silently "twinkle" our fingers in the air instead of clapping in agreement with someone's statement can be used to stifle dissent. Sure, twinkling takes less time than clapping, but it's also a way to forbid any emotional expression. Finally, one of the people who was allowed to speak the most and influence decision making at the 2010 gathering's meetings had almost no exposure to Reclaiming. During a trance journey in our opening ritual, this self-described "roaming activist" called out a vision of "The White House in flames!" And she didn't mean symbolically burning down the Obama White House. Reclaiming is all about non-violence. New people need to be instructed to shut up, watch and listen for a year before being allowed to speak at major decision making meetings for a national or international group like Reclaiming.
I experienced this consensus decision making issue with Occupy Portland, when I lived in Portland, Oregon. I attended a march that had been organized, but I didn't know anyone, I just showed up because I supported the cause and wanted to learn more. On this day it was raining a bit and the march was long. We ended up at a public square on PSU campus and I heard some speakers. Well then I guess they decided to hold a meeting which involved decision making, and it was a four-hour meeting! Because they wanted consensus from the whole crowd, which was at least 50 people. Honestly I was confused trying to follow it all, wet and miserable, and the whole thing turned me off to protesting for several years. Looking back, I don't know why they tried to exercise a consensus decision making practice with a bunch of people who just showed up to protest. We weren't trained, or educated, and didn't sign up for a long and onerous meeting.
I'm a protester now, though! I found different actions where I fit in better and found my people.