Facilitating occupation
In another recent post Chris Corrigan (see our previous post) has also collated a few links to support Occupy protests in facilitation.
Plan to Win have done the same in their #Occupy 101 post, with some specific tools for general assemblies of the kind being used at Occupy Wall Street.
The resources include a fantastic 8 minute video about consensus at Occupy Wall Street, which gives a passionate introduction to the process. I’m sure it’s not all perfect there (where is it?) but it’s a great reminder of the energy and joy that consensus can bring to a movement. I’ve embedded it below. Watch it!. 8 minutes well spent. But that’s not an excuse for not visiting Plan to Win’s site. The other resources are well worth checking out.
In the spirit of signposting resources, here are more links taken from our resources page (many more where these came from). All of these sites have invaluable materials on them on topics like facilitation, but also nonviolent action and strategy:
- Beyond the Choir
- The Change Agency
- Seeds for Change
- Training for Change
- Tree Bressen
- Turning The Tide
And of course there’s our own materials.
October 30, 2011 @ 8:46 pm
Erm, grumpy old man here, but the bit (1;40ish) where one guy says “there is no hierarchy” and that is then repeated and repeated. Shouldn’t that be spliced/mashed up with that bit in the Life of Brian when he goes “you’re all individuals” and everyone shouts back “yes, we’re all individuals”? That would be a youtube sensation, methinks.
What I am trying to say:
While it’s great to see this stuff going down, esp in the States (which has always had lots going on, just not in the MSM), I distinctly remember the same fervour to ‘be heard’ and ‘now they have to listen to us’ after Seattle 1999.
It’s NOT that everyone’s voice is heard, or can be heard in ‘consensus’. That’s a ridiculous statement, patently false (and self-serving?) Surely what’s crucial to keeping newbies (yes, yes, dreadful term) is that they get to find some outlet for their energy and skills, that they get mentored to increase their skills, within the broader context of a set of ‘winnable’ but radical/worthwhile demands – what Michael Albert calls “non-reformist reforms”. The idea that the key to getting and keeping new folks is that their voice is heard is dangerously delusional. In my ever so humble opinion.
October 31, 2011 @ 8:17 pm
“It’s NOT that everyone’s voice is heard, or can be heard in ‘consensus’. That’s a ridiculous statement, patently false (and self-serving?)”
OK, so some clarification needed. Can everyone’s individual voice be heard, especially in the context of a general assembly of hundreds? Of course not. It’s unlikely to be possible even in your average meeting of 6-12 people. So in that sense I agree with you, and also agree that creating that expectation is dangerous.
But does good consensus leave people feeling heard? Yep.
So, what’s the difference?
(1) In good consensus there needs to be an acceptance that I may not personally get to raise a point, but that that’s OK because I’m not that unique and others will say it if I don’t.
(2) There also needs to be some discipline (sorry – I know that word isn’t always popular) about the contributions we make. I can’t expect to be heard if my comments aren’t useful. There’s a saying – “say what needs to be heard not what you want to say”
(3) Effective consensus hears the concerns of the group – both those on the surface and the less obvious ones, and those of the margins of the group as well as those of the mainstream. And it’s not having concerns dealt with that leaves people feeling ‘unheard’
Whether the consensus you and I are likely to encounter lives up to this is another matter……
This comment was first posted on dwight towers’ site