When Is Consensus Process Not Consensual?

Well, the answer, in my experience, is all too often.

The most common problem I’ve encountered is what I will indelicately term the ‘bully factor.’  It’s always deliberate, if perhaps unconscious.  It’s simply a fact of life that some voices carry more weight than others.  And it has nothing to do with volume.

I’ve just experienced, once again, decision-making by the ‘bully factor’ trying to pass itself off as consensus.  When there is a call for a sweeping decision that doesn’t allow for individual voices to speak on different perspectives on an issue, it’s extremely difficult for one or more individuals to voice an objection.  Even when the facilitator asks for any objections or concerns, anyone voicing such concerns risks derision and disdain, resulting in one’s concerns being dismissed.  That person (or persons) may be viewed as being an antagonistic malcontent rather than a valued contributor to the process.  Hence, alienation and a breakdown of communal trust.

I am not an anarchist, by whatever definition.  I can observe hierarchical structures in Nature.  I think hierarchy is a natural and valuable arrangement.  What I think is not healthy, however, is ossified hierarchical structures in which those invested in their own sense of power, their control over the actions of others, and seek to hold tightly to their positions of authority.  This is the downside of strictly maintained hierarchies and accounts for the appeal of anarchy (“without ruler”)[1] and consensus process

I think the sharing of power is complex, but essentially easy if one approachs the playground with the intent to ‘play well with others.’  That means that the responsibility to be sure every voice that wishes to be heard is afforded the opportunity to speak rests on everyone.  Talkers like me must take care to back off a bit and allow more timid speakers to voice their thoughts.  By the same token, more introverted folks need to assert themselves more than is their nature to do.

Two, sometimes three, other participants bear responsibility for assuring that every voice is heard.  The two are the facilitator and the group at large.  If the group is large, perhaps inclined towards contention, or even so enthusiastic about an issue that process gets lost, it may choose a temporary ‘vibeswatcher,’ to be the third party seeking to assure good process.

Underlying all consensus process is the implied power of any participant to call process when proper, agreed-upon process is not being observed.

I’m disturbed by a recent incident of what I consider bad process and allowing the bully factor to triumph.  These kinds of transgressions are more likely to occur when a meeting, or series of meetings, has been going on for a long while, like at the end of the day or when only a few items needing resolution are left on the agenda and everyone wants to be done with the work.

Consensus process does not work well in the following circumstances:

★     There is a lack of mutual trust among the participants.

★     The group is too large for efficient process.

★    There are distinct factions within the larger group.

The first and third items above are related, in that when factions develop, mutual trust diminishes.

So for me Rule No. One for effective, honest consensus process decision-making is trust.  It’s not enough to know your collaborators well; one must respect one’s collaborators and trust in their goodwill and their good-faith efforts to achieve shared goals.  Without trust and mutual respect, groups fragment into factions, often mistrustful of each other.  Actions taken in situations of mistrust and factionalization within a group have not allowed for the best of everyone to be expressed.  They do a disservice to the group itself and all of its members.

All the flow charts in the world will not make up for lack of trust within a group.

---

[1]           I’m not prepared to debate the various interpretations and manifestations of anarchy.

On the Matter of Big Name Pagans

My friend Peter Dybing has posted this blog, "Killing the Big Name Pagans," at Pagan in Paradise.  I tend to get more inspired when writing something responsive to the ideas of others, which often means I just post a long response.  When I do that, my thoughts don't make it beyond that feedback form.  So today I've decided to post my full response here:

I agree with the opinions expressed in earlier feedback at Pagan in Paradise by Thorn, Peg and Elizabeth. Here are few factoids that inform my opinion:

*  How one conducts oneself is more important to me than how high one's public profile is.

*  Leaders happen. Some people have leadership qualities, like initiative, and others have less or none at all. And just because someone takes on a leadership role doesn't mean that others have to follow. With no followers, one is not leading anything or anyone. But the emergence of more informed and/or influential and/or accomplished individuals is natural. Nature, is Nature not our teacher?

*  There is a big difference between those who see an opportunity to be of service, to do something worthwhile and that probably benefits many, and those who are building a career out of being some 'Pagan personage.'  Whether it's selling books, acquiring teaching gigs for money, whatever, that's somewhat different from leadership, per se. Which is not to say that one cannot be and do both -- be of service and sell books. My point is that motivations may be different. If you have to make some money to pay the rent and what you do to earn money is sell books and give workshops, you have a different motivation from someone who's just doing some kind of labor-intensive and responsibility-laden Pagan-oriented work (like organizing a festival or keeping the account books) that I would also view as a leadership role.

*  Lastly, we live in a culture of celebrity. No matter how 'different' and unaffected by mainstream mores we may claim to be, every one of us lives within, and is affected and informed by, the overculture.

Having said all that, I will conclude by mentioning that when you see Pagans doing work you consider beneficial or worthwhile, it's nice to give them some word of appreciation. As a sometime-recipient of words of encouragement, I can tell you it really feels good. Conversely, it doesn't feel so good to be overlooked.

By the same token, if someone is doing something publicly on behalf of Paganism and you think what they're doing is not good, it's appropriate to address the things you think are problematic or those with which you don't agree. To hold that person accountable, at least to the community/organization on whose behalf that person acts. That does not mean trashing the person. It only means speaking to specific issues.

And if you really hate what someone is doing in the public forum, you really disagree, well, jump into that sandbox and build your own castle; put your own ideas in motion.

Accountability, or Lack Thereof

I'm going to relate two concrete examples of issues of accountability, tangible issues, that have been brought to my attention by the people who were wronged.  These two examples concern financial matters.  The magico-spiritual and/or social issues may be articulated in a subsequent post.  For now...

* * * * *

A Reclaiming community on the East Coast decides to have a teachers' retreat.  (Hereinafter I'll refer to this particular community as "SH.")  The venue they choose is in a state where none of them lives.  This venue must be rented by a resident of that state.  They ask a prominent Pagan who lives there to reserve the venue for their retreat.  (Again, for clarity I'll assign this person the appellation of "PP.")  PP does as SH requests and reserves the venue.  He is required to pay a sizable deposit ($400, I seem to recall) which he does.

In the meantime there is a dust-up within SH.  Some members seem to think it's elitist to allow the teachers to go off by themselves to work on the things they think are important for them to work on.  (Please allow for some distortion of this story due to its second-hand nature.  I think the facts essentially boil down to the same thing.)  As a result, SH cancels the retreat.  Period.  That's it.  End of story.  Well, no, not really.

Other local Pagans who have loose affiliations with Reclaiming and this particular community decide to collect money from amongst themselves to repay PP.  PP, although he appreciates the effort, does not feel this is okay.  He declines their offer.  He insists, rightly in my opinion, that the repayment is owed by the people who asked for him to do this, not from others loosely connected with the trad or group.

How do I know about this if I live on the West Coast and am not involved with this local Reclaiming group in any way?  Well, I've made it my business over the past 30+ years to expose myself to different Witches and Pagans around the country whenever I'm given an opportunity.  PP, who is a good friend, told me.  Since I have formally withdrawn from Reclaiming, I have spoken with PP and learned, no surprise, that no effort has been made to repay him.

What can I do about it?  Not much, except to say it here.  There is no central authority.  I'm fine with that.  In fact, I think it's healthy.  Still, where is the personal or group (SH, not all of Reclaiming) accountability for having made this request of someone not a member of the group, caused them expense, and then changing their minds and leaving PP holding the bag?

* * * * *

Example Number Two:  A local SF Bay Area Reclaiming person moves to a city in the San Joaquin Valley.  I will refer to this person as "Mover."  I have friends there, have presented workshops there, and now have been invited to present at the first Pagan Pride event in this region.  I do so and I enjoy the day.  Mover is there and is cordial.

A month or so later I get a call from one of my Pagan pals who lives in the area.  I'll call her S.  S tells me that Mover had announced that she was teaching a Reclaiming class.  Several local folks, being excited at this prospect, paid deposits to be in this class.  Mover disappeared.  Simply disappeared. She left no word and no one seems to know where she's gone. 

S, on behalf of those who paid deposits, herself included, phones me in distress.  She understandably wants to know where Mover and the deposit money is.

I call two local Reclaiming people whom I know to be mentors of Mover.  They don't know where Mover has gone, either.  That's the end of it.  This happened maybe ten years ago.

Several years later I encounter Mover at a wedding, so obviously she is no longer "disappeared."

After my resignation, S contacted me to offer support and sympathy.  She recognizes similar patterns from groups she's been a part of.  Just to be sure I'm current on my facts, I ask her if she's ever heard from Mover and/or been refunded her deposit.  She has not.

Oddly, Mover shares a cabin with me at Dandelion 5.  We do talk briefly about Mover's short residence in this Valley city, but no mention is made, either by her or by me, of the missing money.  I decide, because so much time has elapsed and because of the reasons she gives for having left that city, not to bring up the matter of the money.

Now, however, the landscape has changed.  I have resigned, and one of the reasons I've given is lack of accountability.  I mean this accountability in many ways, not just financial.  I offer these two examples because, being cold facts, they can be assessed objectively rather than subjectively.  Other less objective lapses in accountability are more difficult to articulate -- and to judge.  Perhaps readers may have had similar experiences.  If so, I invite you to write of them here.

A Co-Founder Withdraws from Reclaiming Tradition

I, M. Macha NightMare, Priestess & Witch, aka Aline O’Brien, withdraw from the organization known as Reclaiming Tradition Witchcraft and hereby dissociate myself from further involvement with the tradition.  I make this statement formally and publicly because I am a public figure known to be connected to Reclaiming.

I do not make this decision lightly or without forethought and considerations for potential consequences.  It has been a long time coming.  I no longer feel that its principles and practices accord with my own.  I intend to remain as true as I can to original Principles of Unity released in 1997, and of which I am a co-creator.  Many may assume that the adoption of a revised Principles of Unity soon to be published is my reason for retiring.  However, my unwillingness to accept them is not my only reason.  I have long felt alienated, estranged, and out of sync with how I've seen the tradition devolving.  

The incompatibilities between Reclaiming and me also trace to loose, undefined standards; lack of accountability; uncivil personal conduct and rude, disrespectful behavior without any restraint or consequences; lack of coherent theology; lack of intellectual rigor; and carelessness in ritual and other aspects of religious practice.  

I do this in order to maintain my own standards of honor and integrity.  I need to love and respect the person I see in the mirror.  

I remain a Witch.  I am not renouncing my oath to protect and defend my sisters and brothers of the art.  I intend to remain true to my vows.   I hope to continue to enjoy the many loving relationships engendered in the context of Reclaiming.

It will take me some time to unpack and explore these many concerns on this Broomstick Chronicles blog.  I hope others will join me in this exploration and will contribute their thoughts and feelings as I begin to articulate mine.

I am full of love and gratitude for having had the opportunity to help midwife the birth and growth of Reclaiming in its earlier incarnations, and to have trod the path alongside so many loved ones.