L.A. Kauffman charts the history of consensus in US activism back to the Clamshell Alliance rallying against the Seabrook Nuclear plant. Consensus decision-making was introduced by a few member who had learned the technique in Quaker circles, and it has now assumed an outsized role in activist circles. However, as Occupy showed it is unwieldy and slow, and worst of all perhaps it rewards those with great reserves of time, while those with day jobs or families can’t sit in endless pow-wows, jawing over every facet of every issue.
The prime appeal of consensus process for 40 years has been its promise to be more profoundly democratic than other methods. This promise has been repeated again and again like dogma. But let’s face it: the real-world evidence is shaky at best. Perhaps the reason why it has endured so long in activist circles despite its evident practical shortcomings has something to do with the theological character it carried over from Quaker religious practice, the way it addresses a deep desire for transcendent group unity and “higher truth.”
If the forty-year persistence of consensus has been a matter of faith, surely the time has now come for apostasy. Piety and habit are bad reasons to keep using a process whose benefits are more notional than real. Outside of small-group settings, consensus process is unwieldy, off-putting, tiresome, and ineffective. Many inclusive, accountable alternative methods are available for making decisions democratically. If we want to change the world, let’s pick ones that work.
Yes, please.
from Stowe Boyd http://stoweboyd.com/post/121605757757
