Gus Van Horn blog Posted August 18, 2015 Report Share Posted August 18, 2015 A short piece in The Berkeley Journal of Sociology titled, "The Theology of Consensus" considers the historical roots and practical limitations of a group decision-making practice common among left-wing activist groups, such as Occupy Wall Street. Among its conclusions about the latter: In practice, ... the process was fraught with difficulty from the start. At the 1977 Seabrook blockade, where consensus was first employed in a large-scale action setting, the spokescouncil spent nearly all the time before being ordered to leave the site bogged down in lengthy discussions of minor issues. A similar dynamic played out in Occupy Wall Street almost a quarter century later, where the general assembly proved ill-equipped to address the day-to-day needs of the encampment. Though On Conflict and Consensus assured organizers that "Formal Consensus is not inherently time-consuming," experience suggested otherwise. The process favored those with the most time, as meetings tended to drag out for hours; in theory, consensus might include everyone in all deliberations, but in practice, the process greatly favored those who could devote limitless time to the movement -- and made full participation difficult for those with ordinary life commitments outside of their activism. The theological roots of the practice, which is an attempt to gain a woozy "feel" for some divinely-imparted truth, point to another, more fundamental weakness: Emotions are not tools of cognition. Even if this process did notempower cranks and provocateurs, its emotionalist underpinnings make a decision that is actually grounded in reality impossible, and one that seems reasonable a coincidence. -- CAV Link to Original Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.