Oh my god I just loathe sitting through meetings that use formal consensus process. I hate it. I hate it so much. I have little to say right now about the details of why. Just… ARGH.
None of which is to say I’m against consensus as a good in many situations, I’m not, I’m all for that. But as a formal decision making process…. fuck that.
Stuff to read later….
http://www.co-intelligence.org/I-comparisonRR-CC-DF.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making#Criticisms
http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/42386
http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/sep07/5549
Return to this:
http://whatinthehell.blogsome.com/2007/03/08/is-wrong-with-consensus/
people it is a method of arriving at mutually agreeable terms, but actually it a form mental and social violence (enforced boredom, meetings, and worse) to suppress dissent and ultimately to repress any real possibility of difference in the world.
Comment by jeremy — January 30, 2009 @ 6:51 am
Nate, I share your frustration with consensus. In the lead up to a major protest last year (you can guess which one), I attended meetings that included up to 150 people and attempted to utilize a consensus process. Very little was actually accomplished. That aside, I think that disagreement is the key part of democratic process. I don’t think everyone needs to agree (or in the terms of consensus, every concern needs to be adequately removed) in order for people to act or to enact policy.
I found that instead of fostering a communal sense of agreement, consensus generally discouraged people from voicing dissent. If every concern must be dealt with prior to enacting policy there remains little room for people to dissent without blocking the entire group from action. If the concern is not a blocking concern but is still a concern then the group does not reach consensus and there is then the need for an ad hoc majority which gives an *exceptional* power to the moderator.
Comment by Matt — January 30, 2009 @ 4:17 pm
I know there are times and places where consensus process works really well. More power to folk in those times and places. I’ve never liked it, though, and I resent a sort of consensus as magic bullet idea that I’ve run into sometimes (in part for the implication that anyone who doesn’t like the process is somehow reactionary). A good friend of mine was part of a group that used consensus process and eventually left the group because the process plus the work they had to do made for longer meetings than he could sit through. Not because he was annoyed (though he was) but because he had family obligations that meant he couldn’t be stay as late as everyone else (he was the only parent in the group, I think). One of those documents I linked to, I forget which one, lists what it claims are the values implied in different meeting procedures. One thing I value in a meeting is efficiency and brevity, because I have little time. I realize there are downsides to this, but given the constraints on my time this is an important priority for me. It’s okay for others to have different priorities but again I find the idea that some folk have that there’s one best procedural form regardless of priorities really annoying.
cheers,
Nate
Comment by Nate — February 1, 2009 @ 1:37 am
Again, the problem with trying to create horizontalism “inthe shell of the old”. Lack of time is the most subversive thievery of capitalism, thwarting our efforts to create new systems. (such as consensus)
Comment by troutsky — February 2, 2009 @ 11:06 am
As much as consensus is a huge pain in the ass, it’s really very little better or worse than other decision-making processes. Parliamentary procedure is just as, if not more, fucked up in terms of personal dynamics and power as consensus. Ultimately, there is no “good” system of organizing, there are only good people. A good facilitator can make formal consensus work like magic, just as a good chair can help stop hurt feelings in parliamentary meetings.
Comment by Brendan — February 4, 2009 @ 11:11 pm
hi Brendan,
I take your over all point though I think you’re wrong that there’s anything inherent in parliamentary procedure type proceedings that are automatically problematic in terms of power (actually, it’d be really interesting to see what sorts of power are involved in or possible in these different procedures). Procedure is a tool and it’s only as good as the people using it and the ends for which it’s used, and there is no procedural way to rule out all possibilities of abuse. As I said, I’ll take the point that this is all a tool, though, and I may be unfairly moving between substantive and procedural issues - if the right substantive conditions obtain, nearly any procedure can work well for a group. I happen to prefer a well functioning PP to a well function consensus. I think there are values or at least … rhythms embedded in meeting procedures. In my experience, consensus makes for longer meetings. That alone is an argument against it. I’m not trying to be flippant in saying that - I’m serious, I have a major lack of time in my life in part because I have majorly important responsibilities taking up my time. This will only increase as I become a parent. As such, longer meetings can themselves be undemocratic in so far as they exclude some folk. Of course similar things could be said of parliamentary procedure. I’ve seen some real parliamentary procedure disaster meetings. But I’ve seen some really artfully done PP meetings, which had among their virtues that a great deal was accomplished in very little time. I’ve also seen artfully done consensus meetings, but none of them had that same virtue of efficiency.
cheers,
Nate
ps- how’s Mexico?
Comment by Nate — February 4, 2009 @ 11:44 pm