by C.T. Lawrence Butler
If you were asked to pick one thing that might bring
about major social, political, and economic change
in this country, what would you pick? Most people
would pick their favorite issue; be it civil rights,
demilitarization, environmental sustainability, or
whatever. Some people would choose a system of values
to replace the capitalism system such as socialism
or the Ten Key Values of the Greens. But few people
would even think of changing group dynamics (the way
people treat each other when interacting with one another
in a group); or specifically, the process they use
when making decisions.
Process is the key to revolutionary change. This is
not a new message. Visionaries have long pointed to
this but it is a hard lesson to learn. As recently
as the 70s, feminists clearly defined the lack of an
alternative process for decisionmaking and group interaction
as the single most important obstacle in the way of
real change, both within progressive organizations
and for society at large. Despite progress on many
issues of concern to progressive-minded people, very
little has changed in the way people treat each other,
either locally or globally, and almost nothing has
changed about who makes the decisions. The values
of competition, which allow us to accept the idea that
somebody has to lose; the structure of hierarchy, which,
by definition, creates power elites; and the techniques
of domination and control, which dehumanizes and alienates
all parties affected by their use, are the standards
of group interaction with which we were all conditioned.
There are but a few models in our society which offer
an alternative.
All groups, no matter what their mission or political
philosophy, use some form of process to accomplish
their work. Almost all groups, no matter where they
fall on the social, political, and economic spectrum
of society, have a hierarchical structure, accept competition
as "natural", acceptable, and even desirable,
and put a good deal of effort into maintaining control
of their members. It is telling that in our society,
there are opposing groups, with very different perspectives
and values, which have identical structures and techniques
for interaction and decisionmaking. If you played
a theater game in which both groups wore the same costumes
and masks and spoke in gibberish rather than words,
a spectator would not be able to tell them apart.
So what would an alternative revolutionary decisionmaking
process look like, you ask? To begin with, a fundamental
shift from competition to cooperation. This does not
mean to do away with competition. Ask any team coach
what the key to victory is and you will be told "cooperation
within the team". The fundamental shift is the
use of competition not to win, which is just a polite
way of saying to dominate, to beat, to destroy, to
kill the opposition; but rather, to use competition
to do or be the best. In addition, the cooperative
spirit recognizes that it is not necessary to attack
another's efforts in order to do your best; in fact,
the opposite is true. In most situations, helping
others do their best actually increases your ability
to do better. And in group interactions, the cooperative
spirit actually allows the group's best to be better
than the sum of its parts.
Cooperation is more than "live and let live".
It is making an effort to understand another's point
of view. It is incorporating another's perspective
with your own so that a new perspective emerges. It
is suspending disbelief, even if only temporarily,
so you can see the gem of truth in ideas other than
your own. It is a process of creativity, synthesis,
and open-mindedness which leads to trust-building,
better communication and understanding, and ultimately,
a stronger, healthier, more successful group.
The next step is the development of an organization
which is non-hierarchical or egalitarian. A corresponding
structure would include: participatory democracy,
routine universal skill-building and information sharing,
rotation of leadership roles, frequent evaluations,
and, perhaps most importantly, equal access to power.
Hierarchical structures are not, in and of themselves,
the problem. But their use concentrates power at the
top and, invariably, the top becomes less and less
accessible to the people at the bottom, who are usually
most affected by the decisions made by those at the
top. Within groups (and within society itself), there
becomes a power elite. In an egalitarian structure,
everyone has access to power and every position of
power is accountable to everyone. This does not mean
that there are no leaders. But the leaders actively
share skills and information. They recognize that
leadership is a role empowered by the entire group,
not a personal characteristic. A group in which most
or all of the members can fill any of the leadership
roles cannot easily be dominated, internally or externally.
The last and most visible step towards revolutionary
change in group process is the manner in which members
of the group interact with each other. Dominating
attitudes and controlling behavior would not be tolerated.
People would show respect and expect to be shown respect.
Everyone would be doing their personal best to help
the group reach decisions which are in the best interest
of the group. There would be no posturing and taking
sides. Conflicts would be seen as an opportunity for
growth, expanding people's thinking, sharing new information,
and developing new solutions which include everyone's
perspectives. The group would create an environment
where everyone was encouraged to participate, conflict
was freely expressed, and resolutions were in the best
interest of everyone involved. Indubitably, this would
be revolutionary.
Home
Food Not Bombs Publishing
7304 Carroll Ave #136
Takoma Park, MD 20912
1-800-569-4054
E-Mail: ctbutler@consensus.net
|