[Resolve] A reply to Kimci's remarks -- thoughts about the state of conflict resolution within indymedia

[John Windmueller]

Hi folks, 

Kimci, you've made a lot of assumptions about me (and personal attacks for
that matter), without actually knowing my background or views.  So, you
might be surprised that I happen to entirely agree with your fundamental
point about how conflict is handled at the global network level within
Indymedia.  Specifically, you say:

"Power abuse is common in the indymedia network. It can only be avoided by
setting up formal conflict resolution structures that can challenge the
organization at every level. Theis [sic] doesn't exist."

That's entirely correct.  I agree completely.

This conflict has failed to be constructively resolved for two core reasons:

A. Exactly what you pointed out Kimci: Indymedia has no formal and effective
dispute resolution system at the global level.

B. Individuals, on all sides of the dispute, have behaved remarkably nastily
toward one another.  Resolving conflict takes empathy, creativity, and
sometimes compromise, and that's impossible (or at least very unlikely) when
people are making vitriolic personal attacks.


--[ What we currently do to resolve Indymedia disputes ]---------
The de facto (and rotten) current global process for resolving disputes that
percolate up from the local and regional levels are these 4 steps:

Step 1. Suggest that the collective or region tries local mediation. At it's
face, that's an excellent suggestion. Unfortunately, collectives rarely do
this, or when they do, they don't do a very good job of making the effort to
find an experienced mediator.  At the global level, we provide very little
help in educating folks about the option of mediation and in making more
resources available to help collectives locate and evaluate potential
mediators for their disputes.

There has been the idea of providing online mediation, which was one of the
(unfulfilled) ideas behind the imc-resolve list.  However, online mediation
is a poor match for interpersonal and vitriolic disputes, which many of the
local and regional disputes end up being.  There's been quite a lot of
research done on where online mediation works and where it doesn't, and the
bulk of local indymedia disputes involve issues and dynamics that lend
themselves much better to face-to-face mediation.

Step 2. If mediation fails (or just never gets tried), then the dispute
comes back to global imc discussions and it often gets sent over to
imc-resolve.  However, because imc-resolve is just a message forum with no
resources or process, what this really does is just de facto ghetto-izes the
conversation.  Parties to the conflict continue to yell past one-another.
Often it even gets worse, because now, on a more public stage, there is a
bigger incentive for making sweeping accusations and grandstanding for the
perceived global indymedia audience.

Step 3. Sometimes parties to a conflict get so exhausted from going nowhere
and the hurting stalemate this produces that they reach some compromise or
decision to just live peaceably with the tension.  It's a peculiar, and
certainly not ideal, situation that the utter lack of effective dispute
resolution in the Indymedia network contributes to producing a hurting
stalemate in disputes, and that alone sometimes provides (again, far from
ideal) a degree of resolutions.

Or... it goes to the level of requiring a global proposal.

Step 4. Global proposal.  This is, hands down, a terrible way of resolving a
local ore regional dispute, and it's currently our only option in
arbitrating a conflict that can't be resolved internally.  It's difficult
and cumbersome to expect all the indymedia collectives in the global network
to have internal discussions about a far-away conflict and to, as a whole,
be able to make a good judgment about a fair outcome.

If parties to a conflict are unable to reach a consensus decision about how
to resolve a dispute, then it makes sense to have the unfortunate point of
requiring the conflict to be arbitrated.  If that weren't an option, then
conflict just gets settled by whomever has the most power and can impose
their wishes.  (This supports Kimci's point of how a lack of an effective
dispute resolution system within Indymedia makes it prone to potential
abuses of power.)  

However, arbitration by global proposal is a poor route to go. When
mediation or other attempts at local dispute resolution fail, before
resorting to global proposals, there should be a system that allows parties
in conflict to select from a pool of volunteer arbitrators (where all
parties must agree to the panel of arbitrators), and then those arbitrators
can more thoroughly learn about the conflict and make a fairer decision
about a resolution.


--[ What's next for Darwin]----

Ok, while it's interesting to wax on about the sad state of affairs of how
disputes are resolved (and not) within Indymedia, there's the pressing issue
of the Melbourne Darwin proposal.  I'd like to remind everyone that any
collective other than a collective being considered for disaffiliation can
block a proposal, and they can block it for any reason.  Kimci, and other
individuals who don't support the Melbourne proposal (or even just it's
deadline): You just need to persuade a collective in the network to block
the proposal.  

With that in mind, I'd like to suggest that threats and personal attacks are
counter-productive for everyone and all-sides involved.  Communication and
persuasion are what's going to decide if this (or any) proposal will receive
consensus support of collectives.


--[ A personal note about power within Indymedia ]----

Kimci, it's a bit funny (and I mean this nicely) that you should represent
me as holding any particular power within Indymedia. I've strongly disagreed
with many (most actually) global decisions that have been made.  And since
my day gig is as a university professor in negotiation and conflict
management, the fact that the network has such a dismal system of dispute
resolution continually irks me.

By the way Kimci, to add your list of wrong assumptions about me: ** I don't
happen to personally agree with the Melbourne proposal. **  I think it's
wrongheaded to single out individuals in global Indymedia proposals, and if
there is going to be a Darwin disaffiliation proposal, I think it shouldn't
be contingent on or single out individuals and their involvement in
Indymedia.  However (and despite your insinuations about the supposed power
of imc-process moderators) I have absolutely no power or authority to impose
my opinion on whether a global proposal is adopted or not.

Just how much of an "outsider" am I?  Well... I think Indymedia has made
some terrible decisions as a whole at the global level.  I think many
editorial groups in the network feature content that is racist and material
that is so disconnected from fact that it significantly harms Indymedia's
credibility and the cause of peace and social justice in general.  Heck, if
I had my druthers, the local DC indymedia collective would be disaffiliated
for violating Indymedia principles of unity.  And we'd certainly have a very
different method of resolving disputes.  In short, I've been involved with
Indymedia since April of 2000, and if there was a nefarious power structure
in the network and I had any high position in it, well Indymedia would look
mighty different than it does.  :-)

I'm just here because I happen to agree in the initial Indymedia vision of
having an alternative option to mainstream, corporate media; a place that
allows more democratic and inclusive access to producing and distributing
news stories from diverse perspectives.


--[ Where to go from here w/conflict resolution in the network ]----

This isn't a new problem.  Hopefully at some point a global proposal will
get introduced to amend and change the way Indymedia handles local and
regional disputes that get escalated to the global level.  If there's a
collective that would like to work on that proposal, I'd be happy to pitch
in to the effort with ideas and resource material.

Cheers,
John





---
John Windmueller, Ph.D.
Institute for Conflict Analysis & Resolution
George Mason University