Groups for Action
From WRIWiki
This is a rewrite of several pieces: Roles in an action, Group Process, Affinity Groups, and Decision Making. The original pieces can still be accessed.
This chapter covers several aspects on working in groups. It introduces the concept of affinity groups, looks at our group process, describes the theory and process of consensus decision making, and finally looks at different roles in an action.
Contents |
Introduction
A challenge for any movement which wants to do effective nonviolent actions is how to prepare these actions. Mohandas K. Gandhi and Martin Luther King emphasized mass-meetings and “self-purification”, i.e. individual preparation through meditation, fasting or prayer. They believed in “nonviolence of the strong”. Since the 1970s – with the criticism of such spiritual and individualistic nonviolence together with the creative development of new organisational forms, especially within the US feminist movement – NVDA preparation has become more group-oriented. Even in big movements most work is done in (smaller) groups.
If we work in the tradition of Gandhian thought means and ends are connected and facilitate each other. Then it makes sense to build a democratic, respectful, non-oppressive and just community culture within your movement if you want to be effective in creating such a society. Thus preparation is two-folded: building community and enabling effective results. Any group will differ in how exactly it wants to go about combining such process and goal orientations, since they demand very different activities. To make our own unique combination with energy, fantasy and endurance we need something more: creativity, both individually and collectively.
So, a good group needs to facilitate creativity, community and effectiveness, in a good combination (and that combination depends on the group and the context, the task ahead, etc.) that makes nonviolence flourishing in our selves and our society.
This is a difficult task which demands good understanding of both groups and the world you work in. Here we share some resources to help you with this process.
Affinity Groups
(based on an article by Starhawk)
Organising for nonviolent action is (often) based on affinity groups, autonomous groups of 5-15 persons where people trust each other and can rely on each other (see the article on affinity groups.
What is an affinity group?
An affinity group is a group of people who have an affinity for each other, know each other's strengths and weaknesses, support each other, and do (or intend to do ) political/campaign work together. The concept of affinity groups has a long history. They developed as an organising structure during the Spanish Civil war and have been used with amazing success over the last 30 years of feminist, anti-nuclear, environmental and social justice movements around the world. Their use in sustaining activists through high levels of police repression has been borne out time and again. Recently, they have been used constructively in mass protest actions in Seattle, at large anti-nuclear protests, and during Block-G8 in Germany in 2007.
With whom?
The simple answer to this is the people that you know, and that feel the same way about the issue(s) in question - people you have an affinity with. They could be people you see in a tutorial, work with, go out with, or live with. The point to stress however, is that you have something in common other than the issue that is bringing you all together, and that you trust them and they trust you.
An important aspect to being part of an affinity group is to get to know where each other is at regarding the campaign or issue. This can involve having a meal together, and you all discussing it after you have eaten, or doing some form of activist related training together, like attending a nonviolence, conflict resolution or facilitation workshop, developing de-arresting strategies if needed, working out how to deal with certain police tactics, eg snatch squads, police horses.
You should all have a shared idea of what you want individually and collectively from the action/campaign, how it will conceivably go, what support you will need from others, and what you can offer others. It helps if you have agreement on certain basic things: how active, how spiritual, how nonviolent, how touchy-feely, how spiky, how willing to risk arrest, when you'll bail-out, your overall political perspective etc.
Group process
Working in groups, whether in our own families, at workshops, or in continuing organisations, is one of the most basic social activities and is a large part of work for social change. Therefore, it is important that groups working for change develop effective, satisfying, democratic methods of doing necessary tasks both for their own use and to share with others.
The elimination of authoritarian and hierarchical structures is important for democratising groups, but does not mean the rejection of all structures. Groups that have taken the latter course have generally become ineffective, or else have reverted to the same, but no longer explicit, authoritarian leadership as before (see for example Jo Freeman's The Tyranny of Structurelessness). <!although there was a counter - the tyranny of tyrannies !> A good group needs to facilitate creativity, community and effectiveness, in a good combination (and that combination depends on the group and the context, the task ahead, etc.) that makes nonviolence flourishing in our selves and our society. Good group functioning is a product of cooperative structures and the intelligent, responsible participation of the groups members.
Group needs
An awareness of group needs (task and maintenance) is essential for any facilitator. This does not mean that you have to be actively concerned with seeing all such needs are met as you can ask individual members of the group to look after something (“Could you/someone please look after heat and ventilation today, turning on or off radiators and opening the windows or door if necessary so we retain a pleasant working environment?”). In any case, most of these are essentially ‘participant’ tasks and skills; if you are a participant, adopt a role that isn’t being done. If you are unsure about playing a particular role or how you’re doing it then check it out (explaining the role you’re playing or considering playing) to the chair/facilitator when and if you have the opportunity individually and out of session, so they know what you’re trying to do. There can also be a tendency to think that people are familiar with this area when many are probably not; taking it as a topic may be valuable for ongoing group dynamics, either in an ongoing or a transient group (in the case of a transient group, the main benefit is when they take it back to their regular meeting groups). You can always check out whether people are aware in this area.
Awareness of inclusion (bringing everyone into participation as fully as possible) and consensus (making decisions with the fullest possible agreement) are both necessary approaches.
Contract/ground rules
Even if it’s an informal group and everyone is relaxed, a group contract or ground rules can be wise, i.e. a set of rules for the workshop or group which everyone assents to (and which you can therefore refer to if someone goes against them or there are problems). There may be things you want (e.g. starting on time in morning and after breaks), and there may be things which participants want (e.g. getting away early on a particular day) which can form part of it. Many people are now familiar with ‘standard’ ground rules and you can if you wish present a ‘standard’ list (it’s faster) and ask people to add or subtract (the list can include such points as one person speaking at a time, speaking for yourself only, confidentiality, no question is barred or too stupid, no put downs). But always get active assent from people to the contract or rules and check for questions.
One thorny issue which might require explored in some contexts is what ‘confidentiality’ actually means in practice – e.g. does it mean not sharing anything from the workshop (which may be unfair or impossible) or “Chat ‘em house rules” – (a colloquial and jokey rendering of London’s ‘Chatham House Rules’), where broad themes can be shared and what was done but no quotes are given or attributed directly to anyone. The longer the workshop, the less experienced people are in group work, or the more sensitive the topic, the more time you may need to spend on ground rules.
Roles in a group meeting
(taken from "Tri-denting It Handbook" 3rd edition)
Taking turns at the various roles helps individuals experience different facets of the group's behaviour and strengthens the group. Roles could include:
- A meeting facilitator who works out the agenda with the other group members before the meeting and who helps to keep the group focused on the issues on the agenda.
- A vibes watcher who observes emotional under-currents and reflects them back to the group (brings them out into the open) if they are affecting the group process. For example, the vibes watcher might pick up on conflict and try to mediate it with the group's help or they might note when the group becomes tired and suggests a quick break or a game.
- An "ism" watcher or oppression watcher who notes and raises with the group any presence of racism, ageism, sexism or other power games (also see the gender section of this handbook).
- A time-keeper to keep you all on the ball and make sure your agenda is completed.
- A note-taker who records your decisions and makes sure everyone has a copy so you all know what decisions you have taken!
Exercises
- Signs of Mature Group Process: A check list of an ideal model for voluntary, political and community groups.
- Task and Maintenance: What makes groups work?: This tool is a quick, easy tool that is effective at helping groups understand the different roles in making groups work: different leadership skills. It requires facilitators to have the theory of task/maintenance internalized fairly well (since they will have to rapidly identify which comments from people belongs where).
- Facilitating meetings: This briefing has tips and advice on facilitating meetings and making them worthwhile.
Decision making
Within nonviolent movements, and especially during nonviolent (direct) actions, the question of decision making requires special attention. As nonviolence is more than the absence of violence, and closely linked to issues of power, the methods of decision making used within nonviolent movement need to avoid creating new relationships of power-over, and need to be participatory and empowering.
This part of the article focuses especially on decision making during and before a nonviolent action.
Consensus decision making
Consensus decision making differs greatly from majority decision making. While majority decision making often leads to a power struggle between two different solutions, consensus decision making aims to take everyone's concerns on board, often modifying a proposed solution several times in the process. It is very much based on listening and respect, and participation by everyone.
Seeds for Change, a UK based trainers' collective, defines consensus as follows: Consensus is a decision-making process that works creatively to include all persons making the decision. Instead of simply voting for an item, and having the majority of the group getting their way, the group is committed to finding solutions that everyone can live with. This ensures that everyone's opinions, ideas and reservations are taken into account. But consensus is more than just a compromise. It is a process that can result in surprising and creative solutions - often better than the original suggestions. (see Consensus Decision Making Seeds for Change)
All these aspects are very important in nonviolent action, especially when people put themselves with their bodies "on the line".
Consensus levels
Consensus does not necessary mean that all agree 100% - while this might be the optimum, it is in practice often not the case. It is therefore important that everyone in the group is aware of different levels of support or non-support that can be given to a certain proposal. The facilitator may need to remind people of these options:
Full agreement: "I fully support the group proposal"
Expression of concern: "I agree but have some concerns about it"
Non-support: "I don't see the need for this, but I'll go along with it."
Reservations: "I think this may be a mistake but I can live with it."
Standing aside: "I personally can't do this, but I won't stop others from doing it." The person standing aside is not responsible for the consequences. This should be recorded in the minutes.
Blocking/Veto/major objection: A single veto/major objection blocks the proposal from passing. If you have a major objection it means that you cannot live with the proposal if it passes. It is so objectionable to you/those you are representing that you will stop the proposal. A major objection isn't an "I don't really like it " or "I liked the other idea better." It is an "I cannot live with this proposal if it passes, and here is why?.!". The group can either accept the veto and withdraw the proposal or discuss the issue further and either amend the proposal or draw up a new one. The veto is a powerful tool and should be used with caution.
Agree to disagree: the group decides that no agreement can be reached on this issue.
Withdrawing from the group: A person may find that they do not share enough common perspective to be able to come to consensus with the others in the group and they may need to find a more suitable group for them.
Reaching consenses - process
There are lots of consensus models (see flowchart on the right). The following basic procedure is taken from Peace News, a magazine for peace activists, June 1988:
- The problem, or decision needing to be made, is defined and named. It helps to do this in a way that separates the problems/questions from personalities.
- Brainstorm possible solutions. Write them all down, even the crazy ones. Keep the energy up for quick, top-of-the head suggestions.
- Create space for questions or clarification on the situation.
- Discuss the options written down. Modify some, eliminate others, and develop a short list. Which are the favourites?
- State the proposal or choice of proposals so that everybody is clear.
- Discuss the pros and cons of each proposal - make sure everybody has a chance to contribute.
- If there is a major objection, return to step 6 (this is the time-consuming bit). Sometimes you may need to return to step 4.
- If there are no major objections, state the decisions and test for agreement.
- Acknowledge minor objections and incorporate friendly amendments.
- Discuss.
- Check for consensus.
Consensus in large groups - spokescouncil
The model of consensus decision making described above works well within one group. However, bigger nonviolent actions require the cooperation of several affinity groups.
The Spokescouncil is one of the most common tools for making consensus decisions in large groups. In a spokescouncil, affinity groups come together to make shared decisions. Each group is represented by their spokesperson or 'spoke' – they communicate to the meeting through him or her, allowing hundreds of people to be represented by fewer voices. What the spoke is empowered to do is up to their affinity group. Spokes may need to consult with their group before discussing or agreeing on certain subjects.
Here is an outline process for a spokescouncil (Note: step 1 and 2 can also take place in advance within the individual small groups).
- Whole group – Introduce the issue and give all the necessary information
- Explain both the consensus and the spokescouncil process
- Form into small groups – these could be existing affinity groups, or groups based on where people live or a shared language or a random selection of people at the meeting,
- The small groups discuss the issue, gather ideas and discuss pros and cons - coming up with one or more proposals or responds to the suggested proposal.
- Each small groups selects a spoke – a person from their group that will represent the group's view at the spokescouncil. Small groups decide whether the spoke is a messenger for the group – e.g. relays information between the small group and the spokes council or whether the spoke can make decisions on the group's behalf at the spokescouncil.
- Spokes from all groups come together in the spokes council. They in turn present the view of their group. The spokes then have a discussion to try and incorporate the various proposals into one workable idea. During this process the spokes may need to call time out to refer with their groups for clarification or to see whether a modified proposal would be acceptable to them. It is important for the spoke to speak on the behalf of the group and not to present their own personal point of view.
- Once the spokescouncil has come up with one or more possible proposals the spokes meet with their groups and check for agreement and objections. Groups can also suggest further modifications of the proposals.
- Spokes meet back at the spokes council and check whether the groups agree. If not all groups agree, the discussion continues.
Important aspects when using consensus
There are many different formats and ways of building consensus, and there is a wide range of experience, which shows that it can work. There are however a few conditions that have to be met for consensus building to be possible:
- Common Goal: All members of the group/meeting need to be united in a common goal, whether it is an action, living communally or greening the neighbourhood. It helps to clearly establish what this overall goal of the group is and to write it down as well. In situations where consensus seems difficult to achieve, it helps to come back to this common goal and to remember what the group is all about.
- Commitment to consensus building: All members of the group must be committed to reaching consensus on all decisions taken. It can be very damaging if individuals secretly want to return to majority voting, just waiting for the chance to say "I told you it wouldn't work". Consensus requires commitment, patience and willingness to put the group first.
- Sufficient time: for making decisions as well as to learn to work in this way.
- Clear process: Make sure that the group is clear about the process they will use for tackling any given issue. Agree beforehand on processes and guidelines. In most cases this will include having one or more facilitators to help the group move through the process.
Exercises/Resources
- Consensus for Small Groups: An introduction and worksheets
Experiences and problems
The model of affinity groups and consensus decision making described above has been used in a wide range of large scale nonviolent actions: from Seattle 1999 over various anti-nuclear energy actions in Germany since 1997 (Castor - with up to 9000 participants) to other anti-globalisation and anti-war protests. Many of these experiences point to a changed political environment since the model was first used in nonviolent actions in the 1970s. This has consequences for the way groups have to organise for large-scale actions.
Very few affinity groups today work long-term. For example, the German anti-nuclear campaign "X-thousands in the way" works less with existing groups. Though they still exist and form the core of the action, most activists join as individuals or in small groups, and only form affinity groups on arrival. Therefore one or two days of preparation are needed before an action, to turn a chaotic mass into a community ready and able to act. And even this community is little more than an expanded core of participants. Most activists join spontaneously and without preparation, and the action has to be planned in a way that makes this possible (Jochen Stay, Preconditions and social-political factors for mass civil disobedience, The Broken Rifle No 69, March 2006).
Another option is to base larger actions on the autonomy of individual affinity groups, which plan and carry out a variety of small scale actions simultaneously on their own. The "large-scale" is then achieved through the number of parallel actions.
The first option is more appropriate when one of the aims is to integrate a large number of new activists. The action is generally more low-risk, and publicly announced. The latter option is more suited to high-risk actions or when a higher level of police repression can be expected.
