[IMC-bristol] resolution/mediation in imc's

[k.skvorak]

  hi,

please feel free to ignore this long email if you are so inclined

i am just responding to 'sam'  ozzysamuk at yahoo.com who posted to 
the resolve list, & whose mailbox is full who requested mediation 
resources- though judging from a quick look at your list, your 
collective doesn't appear to be in 'that' bad a shape compared to 
some others!  (mine included- NYC)

mediation and conflict resolution is an issue that is just coming up
  again and again  (and again) in the imc network (as if you haven't noticed)

the us process list has an active discussion going on right now - i 
am including something i just posted on 'security' and it's 
relationship to this stuff

anyway,  this is just a sample of some things i had laying around my 
mailbox - if anyone else has good material i'd love to see it

  the collective book,  is an excellent resource on collective 
practice and problems
http://www.geocities.com/collectivebook/index.html

i personally think the work that has gone on in the intentional 
communities movement is some of the most thoughtful and experienced 
regarding conflict resolution and consensus - a couple of resources, 
but again do a google for more extensive resources

http://www.treegroup.info/resources/

http://www.ic.org/

  Interpersonal Relationships and Conflict resolution:
  http://www.ic.org/nica/Process/Relation.html

ON CONFLICT AND CONSENSUS
  a handbook on Formal Consensus decision-making :
  http://www.ucc.uconn.edu/~ser00003/consens.html

http://www.consensus.net/ocaccontents.html

  http://www.trainingforchange.org/


more interesting links:
http://www.geocities.com/collectivebook/links.html


  also, check out Starhawks website

http://www.starhawk.org/



fwd;  process 'vs' culture & security in the IMC network

hi all,

kevin s from NYC here

the only concrete thing i will offer folks re conflict resolution, vs 
mediation, vs arbitration etc, are some links on the bottom - they 
might be redundant for many of you - UCIMC also seems to have some 
great online resources

i  do want to share though some brief general observations  about 
some of the conflicts i have seen in IMC work

essentially, it seems to me, that surviving and thriving thru the 
conflicts and disagreements that are -inevitable-  in collectives, 
rests finally more on the 'culture'  within the collective, than it 
does any particular 'process'

if a collective and the individuals within it  genuinely and 
conscientiously practice and promote a culture of tolerance, respect, 
fundamental fairness, commitment to nonviolent communication and so 
forth, virtually any decision making process will serve it's needs

however, if their are individuals in a group that, like us poor 
primates everywhere,  are prone to strong feelings of protectiveness 
over their creative work,  hurt feelings, or even an instinct to 
'getting ones way'  -AND- lack such a collective culture, any 
conflict can spin quickly out of control, and any process can be 
abused by clever folks who wish to bend a collective to their will

  complex process can even be used to actually subvert the egalitarian 
goals that are, at least in theory, the basis of the IMC identity and 
the IMC  principles of unity

  i believe that folks involved in IMC's are generally people of 
goodwill, as are most people on the left, and i believe that most 
people on the 'opposite' sides of  all these  IMC conflicts are also 
decent folks.    (barring possible infiltration- see below)

unfortunately this doesn't mean that people, when they are hurt, and 
in conflict, do not sometimes abandon any commitment to true 
egalitarian relationships, and fall back quickly into factions, power 
plays, personal attacks, and otherwise the kind of coercive and 
authoritarian/majoritarian power dynamics that we are explicitly, in 
words at least, against

'apparatchik' behavior , it seems, has always been endemic to much of 
the left.  people seem to too often operate from the individual 
(perhaps unconscious) rationalization  that the 'ends justifies the 
means'  and tend toward instinctively 'managing' conflict in a group 
by various inherently coercive means (note; 'managing' conflict does 
not equal 'resolving' conflict - sharon's aparthied wall is an 
example of  conflict 'management')

perhaps it is simply because people within imc collectives are 
products of this dysfuntional and violent culture  that we fall so 
often into these patterns, and perhaps it is because we are all, at 
heart, the wounded children of this culture

in any case, imho, some of the most important work that can go on in 
an IMC collective is our revolutionary commitment to building another 
world from the ground up, and our relationships with each other, and 
the community we build and support are the essence of that work - 
equal if not possibly more important than 'getting the message out' 
as media makers

and if we fail to sustain and build our new vision of community, 
then we will inherently fail in virtually all of our other goals

of course not all people in IMC's agree with this idea, and to some 
consensus and egalitarianism  is sometimes a burden, and 'get's in 
the way'  of 'doing the work'   ( not to imply that truly egalitarian 
groups cannot work by some form of revised consensus)

it is certainly possible that when this frustration creeps in  that 
more process can help things move more smoothly, but sometimes no 
amount of process will help if the shared commitment to these 
principles are not fundamental to the group

  there are a lot of nominally  radical and liberal media outlets that 
people can use besides the IMC if they just want to disseminate 
information, and imho folks that feel constrained by MC principles 
should avail themselves of those


re infiltration and 'cointelpro' style tactics of disruption - it is 
pretty darn hard to quantify this risk, but certainly should be 
considered
- we are probably by no means surrounded with provocatuers- but it is 
likely that it  has/is happening at least in  locations towards which 
a lot of anti-terrorism task force resources have been flowing in the 
past few years

      Of course the types of internal splits we are all discussing are 
exactly the types of strategies that have been used in the past
against radical collectives and organizations.

The fact that we are  vulnerable to these types of deliberate 
internal disruptions, is another important reason that we are 
dilligent about maintaining safe and nonviolent 'spaces', and 
creating effective conflict resolution process.   resolving conflict 
in this manner can effectively disempower  this  possibility of 
disruption, while at the same time creating a safe and supportive 
place for individuals to work out principled, and  sometimes painful 
personal disagreements.

if a collective does NOT discourage personal attacks, power plays, 
and all other coercive dynamics with seriousness, and 
conscientiousness, then this collective will remain highly vulnerable 
to internal attacks like this  - this reality is all too common in 
our groups!

Now, we all know that not every "problem child" in the movement is an 
infiltrator.  If that was the case most of us would be on the
payroll.   In recognizing this though, we have to take even more 
seriously the need to support  resolution and address the needs
even of these  "problem children" -   if we are to avoid the 
deliberate damage that may be the intent of the more  malicious
"children"  out there.

   It is important to remember that there was a time when members of 
organizations were so turned against
each other (BPP, AIM, etc) that they did the feds job and attacked & 
even killed each other.

anyway, if you have read this far i appreciate your time and dedication!

in peace,
kevin

"Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing there is a field. I'll 
meet you there. When the soul lies in that grass, the world is too 
full to talk about. Ideas, language, even the phrase 'each other' 
doesn't make any sense."
     Rumi


i wish that we all had in our principles of unity a amendment about a 
commitment to nonviolent communication - we as anti-authoritarians 
tend to engage in terribly coercive and 'violent' communication  esp 
on our email lists - including this one

nonviolent communication check out :  http://www.cnvc.org/  a little 
cheesy perhaps, (and somehow too 'commercial')  but some very useful 
tools nonetheless - there are nvc groups in most cities

also just try a google search on "nonviolent communication"

---------


I strongly agree that we need to create a culture that does not 
further gossip and the kind of destructive interactions that can be 
so easily
exploited by Cointelpro.  It's not just radical paranoia--they've 
really done it.

But on the positive side, we could destroy just about any 
organization we wanted to if five of us joined up:

One to constantly criticize the leadership.
One to support her or him.
One to spread rumors.
One to volunteer for a lot of tasks and then not do them.
And maybe we wouldn't even need the fifth!

Love Starhawk


Community Trust and Accountability
By Starhawk
    
     These are hard times, politically, economically, and emotionally for a
lot of us, and in hard times we need community more than ever.  We need the
support of others around us who share our struggles, and we need to feel
trust that there is some safe space in which we can be valued for who we
are.
     Reclaiming is a vast experiment in building community around shared
values of interconnectedness, of the sacred embodied in nature, flesh and
everyday life, of equality and direct democracy that recognizes no
hierarchies of value.  If our spirituality is expressed in everyday life,
then how we treat each other is an integral part of our spiritual practice.
     Challenging hierarchy is easy enough in theory, but in practice, it's
very difficult.  We have few long-lasting, successful models of
non-hierarchical groups, especially in contemporary society.  Many of us are
veterans of numerous failed experiments of the sixties and seventies.
Indigenous cultures may furnish some models, but most contain their own
internal structures of authority.  And most of us weren't raised in
indigenous cultures, but in the highly competitive urban industrialized
societies of the late twentieth century.
We don't have experts or roadmaps to tell us what to do.  But we can look at
our experience, at what works and what doesn't, what causes pain and what
fosters empowerment and connection.  We can constantly strive to create a
communal culture that supports beneficial relationships and undermines
destructive ways of interacting.
Dealing with conflict and accountability is one of the most challenging
arenas for a nonhierarchical community. When conciliation fails, we
unconsciously reach out for somebody to step in and make things right for
us. We are conditioned to look toward some authority figure to step in and
ultimately resolve a conflict.  In the larger society, that authority may be
backed by the force of law or the law of force: police carry nightsticks and
guns and are authorized to use them.  Courts can issue judgments and impose
punishment. We may not want to turn to the courts or the cops, but we often
do secretly long for our own court to try those who have offended us, or our
own communal cops to make them behave.
But in a community where we've essentially said, "We aren't going to do the
courts and cops thing, overtly or covertly," we're left floundering,
reaching for a structure that doesn't exist.  So what do we do, when someone
transgresses our boundaries or the values we hold in common?  How do we hold
each other accountable when there is no agreed upon structure to be
accountable to?
Oak, in an earlier column, suggested that gossip is one way we hold people
accountable.  Gossip may be a form of default accountability, but I think
it's a highly destructive and dysfunctional way of solving problems in our
community.  I'm not talking about friendly, newsy gossip, "Pondweed has a
new baby!" or "Crystal Rainbow is going to Brazil for five months to study
herbs in the Amazon."  I'm talking about the kind of gossip that substitutes
for direct confrontation or collective action:  "Did you hear about the
awful thing Milkcurd did to Mudflat?"  "That Frogspawn is price-gouging her
students again!"
Such gossip might point out the need for some structure of accountability,
but it can also amount to trial in absentia by rumor, without benefit of
judge or jury or the right to confront the evidence against you.  As
Witches, inheritors of a tradition in which thousands of people were
tortured and killed by just such hearsay, we should be especially sensitive
to not reproducing an atmosphere of innuendo and secret condemnation.
In a time of repression, when many of us are politically as well as
spiritually active, destructive gossip can become more than personal.  It is
one of the prime ways groups such as Cointelpro have historically moved to
undermine effective activists and destroy movements.
We all fall into this kind of gossip from time to time.  We all have moments
when we simply need to vent our frustration to a close friend, or nurse a
wound.  But a functional community would develop a culture that does not
support or reinforce destructive rumors or covert attacks.  In order to do
that, we need to provide some alternative forms of accountability, and other
forums in which people can vent negative feelings and get help in moving
them into some constructive form of activity.
We may also need some help to wean ourselves from the gossip habit.  I
suggest the following steps when someone does something you find offensive:

1. Ask yourself, "Is this actually any of my business?  Do I actually need
to respond to this?"
2. Inquire about what actually happened, or about the person's motivations,
before you make assumptions that rev up your anger or your sense of injury.
3. Confront the person directly, and offer constructive critique, which is
discussed below.
4. Ask for help or mediation if you are afraid to confront the person on
your own.
5. Know what request you want to make of them.  This is a key point in
nonviolent communication-that you don't just complain about someone's
behavior, but tell them what change you want to see them make.

When you hear about someone else's bad behavior, or some act that disturbs
you, or how Mudflat has misused Pondweed:

1. Remember what every adult knows: that every story has at least two sides.
2. Ask yourself, "Is this actually any of my business?"
3. Inquire directly about what happened before leaping to judgment.
4. Support the person who feels injured in confronting the other party
directly, with constructive criticism.

When someone brings negative gossip to you, ask:
1. Is this really any of our business?
2. Have you inquired to find out what actually happened?  Can I support you
in doing so?
3. What kind of support can I give you in directly and constructively
confronting this person or situation?
4. Change the subject.  Refuse to engage.  When someone tries to hook you
in, don't get hooked.  If your friend says, "I really shouldn't tell you
thisŠ." Respond, "I'm so glad you have good boundaries.  Let's talk about
something else."

In The Twelve Wild Swans, Hilary Valentine and I compiled some of
Reclaiming's accumulated wisdom about what differentiates constructive
critique from attack.  Constructive critique, we suggest, has five aspects:

1. It's specific, not vague or generalized.
2. Its intent is to improve the work.
3. It's given at the right time.
4. It's about something the person can actually change.
5. It's given privately before it's given publicly.

If we bear these guidelines in mind, we can offer our criticisms in ways
that make them both easier to hear, and more effective, by asking ourselves,
"What specifically about Pondweed's priestessing do I find so offensive?
What do I actually want her to change?  Am I offering this critique in a
loving way, out of respect for her work?  Have I told her this directly, or
offered it in an appropriate forum like a feedback meeting, before I make it
publicly in a mass meeting or on an open listserve?"
     
When we work within an ethos of leaderlessness, it's hard to hold people
accountable for how they act in roles of leadership they're not supposed to
have.  When we dislike setting rules, it's hard to challenge people for
breaking boundaries that have never been defined.  And when people do take
leadership in constructive ways, they are at risk of being attacked for
overstepping bounds that they never knew existed.
We want people in Reclaiming to be leaders-not in the sense of telling
others what to do but in the broader sense of stepping out in front,
suggesting directions, innovating, creating, and taking on responsibility
for manifesting ideas.  Leadership needs constructive critique, but it also
needs support and encouragement.  Reclaiming is a tradition that values
improvisation and experimentation-which means that leaders are going to make
mistakes and sometimes go in directions that are problematic.  We all need
to know that others will help us catch mistakes, but continue to value us
and encourage us to take risks and try new things.
But what about when confrontation or mediation aren't enough?  What if
Pondweed, in her position of nonauthoritarian authority, really has abused
your trust, and you can't let go of it and don't know what to do about it?
A proposal circulating around the Reclaiming teachers/organizers/long time
campers list (that's an amalgam of ideas put out by me, Dawn, Shya and BC
Camp organizers and others) is to call an Elder's Circle.
An Elder's Circle is a group of at least three people whom you ask to be
your advisors.  They don't need to be old, or more experienced in the Craft
than you, or even long-time community members, they simply need to be people
whose judgment, wisdom, and integrity you trust.  But they should not be
your three best friends, or drawn exclusively from your close circle.  They
should represent whatever other faction or grouping is involved in the
issue.  At least one of them should be familiar with Reclaiming's structure
and organization, or know how to get that information.
An Elder's Circle is not a court of judgment about some other person.  Its
purpose is to help your discernment around an issue, and help judge if some
other step needs to be taken.  When we are in long term conflict with
someone, we tend to put the worst possible interpretation on any action they
take.  The Elder's Circle's task is to help you find clarity.  Then they
might recommend a course of action.  Action could range from personal
healing or rituals of letting go, to confrontation and mediation, to asking
for the other party to make amends in some way.  Action might also be to
bring the issue to the attention of those bodies of accountability that do
exist within Reclaiming, such as a local teacher's cell or the Guidance
Council which helps coordinate teacher selection for the Witchcamps, (which
is why it's helpful if someone is clear on what those are),  or to the
larger community.
Hannah, in the last issue, discussed the Italian feminist concept of
'afidamento'-the voluntary giving of authority to an 'older' woman you see
as a mentor, for the purposes of helping you grow, as an empowering concept
for women.
In calling an Elder's Circle, you voluntarily cede authority to the group
for the purpose of helping you around that issue.  When we voluntarily and
consciously give authority to someone we respect, we remain empowered.  That
authority is not a blanket gift of power-it's specific to a certain
situation, and limited.  We retain the right to take it back.
A process such as an Elder's Circle process would create a means whereby
someone who feels injured can get support, clarity, and help in redressing
that injury.  It would help those who feel less secure within the community
to confront people they perceive as more powerful, and aid us in holding
each other accountable for our actions.
But an Elder's Circle would also protect leaders from the kinds of attack
that arise from jealousy and projection or simple misperception.
An Elder's Circle, or other similar processes that we may invent, would also
help clarify and demystify some of the power dynamics that do exist in
Reclaiming. 
Pagan spirituality is not something reserved for a special day of the week
or a certain hour of meditation.  It's about embodying our deepest values in
our everyday actions and all of our human and beyond-human relationships.
If we act toward each other from the deep sense of interconnection that
underlies our chants and songs and rituals, we can continue to create
nurturing, empowering communal space even in repressive times.  We can
respond to the violence around us by deepening our practice of love.
===========





--