Awesome summary of a really important topic... both by you, Crow, and the Graeber piece you selected. Based on my own experience with Quakers and secular groups using consensus, I would add just a couple of points of clarification.
You write, "[Consensus] can’t be summoned into being overnight amongst a loose collection of people who barely know each other."
Actually I have seen it work with direct action campaigns with such ad hoc groups. And heard from a well-known Quaker/activist who told of success with a group of 500 people at some events she facilitated. But in such cases having such a skilled facilitator definitely is key.
The other comment of yours I would quibble with is "I’m not as hardcore as the Quakers are, by the way. To me, consensus does not mean reaching decisions that everyone loves. It is about reaching decisions that everyone can live with."
I would say what you describe precisely is the mindset of Quakers in their "meetings for business," since it is the practical hinge upon which agreement is possible. Granted, you rightly imply that a basis of unity, however it is understood, is a crucial starting point and underlying principle of consensus. In the Quakers' case, that is a spiritual component, so that even those "business" decisions come in what is called "Meeting for Worship for Business" to reinforce that point (with "worship" or respect of the divine spirit being common to both the above and the mostly silent "Meeting for Worship").
Lacking that organic and palpable sense of togetherness and respect, any group of humans is going to be more challenged to identify and articulate just what their basis of unity is. Though I would argue, the principle of innate human divinity and respect might be achievable even without the "religious" tradition of Quakers to cloak it in. Indeed, that's another way of looking at the whole reason for doing consensus in the first place.
Having spent a year among Quakers in Grass Valley, CA, and also in Reno, NV, I agree with Nowick's comment. Quaker decision making is not "hardcore" consensus as you put it Crow and is much more similar to your own criteria, albeit with an added spiritual component.
Also, I don't know what Quaker affiliation the woman in the video had (there are four divisions in the US as I recall) but her way of talking about "the will of God" I would say is not a common way of speaking about it among Beanite Quakers of the West. In fact, some people who join and become active within the Religious Society of Friends come from a background of having been active in other denominations, even ministers, and I would suspect her as having such a background.
Quakers seek unity in the spirit. They seek to open to the Light of the Spirit which informs us as humans from an intimate, inner place, and then to bring that light forward in what we express and how we express it, and how we live.
I would say this is similar to the Native American way of coming into unity. The book, The Man Who Killed the Deer gives a feeling of this in an American Southwest setting. It's about waiting on the Spirit for direction and illumination.
I agree with Nowick that, particularly in a situation where you have a large number of people who may not know each other or have experience in this kind of process, a facilitator can be indispensable. And I would suggest that the facilitator should be skilled in helping the group along in a way that is PARTICULARLY SUITED TO the situation and aims of the group (in this case, political action and effectiveness).
I think the best way to get a feel for these things is to spend time among people who practice them.
PS I really appreciated your anniversary review of Oliver Anthony - what a man! I found your link to that piece from Paul Cudenec’s winteroak.org.uk site.
Awesome summary of a really important topic... both by you, Crow, and the Graeber piece you selected. Based on my own experience with Quakers and secular groups using consensus, I would add just a couple of points of clarification.
You write, "[Consensus] can’t be summoned into being overnight amongst a loose collection of people who barely know each other."
Actually I have seen it work with direct action campaigns with such ad hoc groups. And heard from a well-known Quaker/activist who told of success with a group of 500 people at some events she facilitated. But in such cases having such a skilled facilitator definitely is key.
The other comment of yours I would quibble with is "I’m not as hardcore as the Quakers are, by the way. To me, consensus does not mean reaching decisions that everyone loves. It is about reaching decisions that everyone can live with."
I would say what you describe precisely is the mindset of Quakers in their "meetings for business," since it is the practical hinge upon which agreement is possible. Granted, you rightly imply that a basis of unity, however it is understood, is a crucial starting point and underlying principle of consensus. In the Quakers' case, that is a spiritual component, so that even those "business" decisions come in what is called "Meeting for Worship for Business" to reinforce that point (with "worship" or respect of the divine spirit being common to both the above and the mostly silent "Meeting for Worship").
Lacking that organic and palpable sense of togetherness and respect, any group of humans is going to be more challenged to identify and articulate just what their basis of unity is. Though I would argue, the principle of innate human divinity and respect might be achievable even without the "religious" tradition of Quakers to cloak it in. Indeed, that's another way of looking at the whole reason for doing consensus in the first place.
Having spent a year among Quakers in Grass Valley, CA, and also in Reno, NV, I agree with Nowick's comment. Quaker decision making is not "hardcore" consensus as you put it Crow and is much more similar to your own criteria, albeit with an added spiritual component.
Also, I don't know what Quaker affiliation the woman in the video had (there are four divisions in the US as I recall) but her way of talking about "the will of God" I would say is not a common way of speaking about it among Beanite Quakers of the West. In fact, some people who join and become active within the Religious Society of Friends come from a background of having been active in other denominations, even ministers, and I would suspect her as having such a background.
Quakers seek unity in the spirit. They seek to open to the Light of the Spirit which informs us as humans from an intimate, inner place, and then to bring that light forward in what we express and how we express it, and how we live.
I would say this is similar to the Native American way of coming into unity. The book, The Man Who Killed the Deer gives a feeling of this in an American Southwest setting. It's about waiting on the Spirit for direction and illumination.
I agree with Nowick that, particularly in a situation where you have a large number of people who may not know each other or have experience in this kind of process, a facilitator can be indispensable. And I would suggest that the facilitator should be skilled in helping the group along in a way that is PARTICULARLY SUITED TO the situation and aims of the group (in this case, political action and effectiveness).
I think the best way to get a feel for these things is to spend time among people who practice them.
Anarchism and counter-cultural communities only work if there is a frame work of spiritually based ethics to live by.
PS I really appreciated your anniversary review of Oliver Anthony - what a man! I found your link to that piece from Paul Cudenec’s winteroak.org.uk site.
Glad you liked it!