Activist Organizations and Large Group Consensus

In intentional communities and grassroots activist circles consensus is a fairly common way of making decisions. Although there are various roots of the emergence of consensus as a decision process and all the reasons for this emergence are not clear part of the picture involves the role of the Quakers in anti-war and social justice movements. The first thing I ever read about consensus was a chapter in the book Resource Manual for a Living Revolution published by New Society Press which was the publishing arm of Movement for a New Society a Quaker inspired revolutionary non-violent social change organization that emerged during the anti-war struggle of the 1960’s. I read this book in 1981 as part of an activist study group.  

During the 1980’s as I cut my teeth on student organizing and antiwar activism I took an interest in consensus process, and I learned that there were various processes some with complex algorithms and charts with countless boxes and arrows. I also learned by doing. Nearly all of the many activist organizations I was involved with used consensus of one form or another. We learned processes to facilitate consensus like fishbowls where a small group sits in the middle and discusses an issue, and the larger group looks on, any of the onlookers can trade places with someone from the inner group if they have something valuable to say.  We learned the importance of sharing of roles through Starhawk’s book Dreaming the Dark. We learned routines like checking before a decision to ask in rapid succession any blocks (to consensus), major objections, minor objections, stand asides, we learned hand signals, the wiggling of fingers often called twinkling as a way of suggesting approval or support for an idea.  All of these things helped and at times large groups of us sat through long meetings. 

The most exciting experiences I have ever had with consensus were using a process called wheel and spokes. The theory behind this approach is that consensus can work efficiently in small groups particularly if the group has some working relationship but that as groups become larger consensus becomes more unwieldy. The solution for large groups is to break into smaller groups often called affinity groups. Each affinity group can take up an issue and discuss it come to a decision then send a spokesperson to a “spokes counsel” or hub. At the spokes counsel participants can represent the views of their group and a collective agreement can be synthesized, finally the agreement can be taken back to the small groups for approval or amendment. This process can be cycled through again if needed. In practice this process can transpire considerably faster than one might think. 

My first experience of the power of this process was a protest demonstration at a weapons research laboratory. There were some 20 or 30 of us involved in occupying a laboratory that was funded by the department of defense.  We were organized into groups of about 5 or 6 people each. We had identified that the labs research was related to the nuclear arms race.  This occupation of the lab which lasted a day or two was at times stressful with upset researches, and campus security trying to pressure us out of our temporary stronghold.  I remember that we were faced with decisions that had ultimatums and we had to collectively decide in a matter of minutes we were able to do this with what struck me as lightning fast efficiency. The affinity groups were scattered in little huddles around the corners of the lab. Spokes people went back and forth from their groups to a central meeting place.  Sure 20 odd people may have been able to come to a quick consensus, but the group as a whole was notorious for long meetings with many opinions, here opinions could be voiced  more efficiently, additionally if we had met as a whole in this lab our voices would have been heard by on-looking security and researchers. maintaining some privacy around our strategy was an advantage. 

I got to watch the magic of this wheal and spokes process work on a much larger level a few years later in the desert of Nevada where thousands of protesters had gathered to protest nuclear weapons testing. Residents of this makeshift desert village were all part of, or at least supposed to be part of , affinity groups.  Our group now was more like 15 people and decisions for the peace camp as a whole were generally less urgent. Every night a spokes council meeting would convene with representatives of the many affinity groups.  We were from farther away that most of the protesters who were from the west coast.  Among the more proximal demonstrators there was a hand full of mid-level organizations. This allowed several affinity groups to have a smaller spokes circle that could again send one representative to the camp wide spokes counsel. This group was still large but manageable. Its main function was shared communication but it also made some decisions. Had those evening meetings been the camp as a whole I suspect it would have become incredibly frustrating and unproductive. Watching this process in action can be a glorious thing.

The world trade organization met in Seattle in 1999. During that meeting thousands of environmental activists and union activists and others concerned about the globalization of the economy came together for a week of street protests. This week the so-called Battle of Seattle marked a turning point in the challenge to neoliberalism. Seeing the levels of protests in the streets gave delegates from Third World countries the courage to reject the treaty agreements that were being proposed. Meanwhile the streets of Seattle filled with quite a bit of tear gas and police aimed at breaking the demonstrations. I wasn't in Seattle but my understanding is that among the activists this wheal and spokes system of consensus was used sometimes even spontaneously among street protesters faced with riot police. The accounts I heard amazed me because what they suggested was that there was a wide swath of activists from a variety of backgrounds all of whom had a working knowledge of this large group consensus process. 

I focus here on large demonstrations only because to my knowledge these events are the largest examples of quick consensus decision-making in action. The Quakers, the society of friends as they call themselves make consensus decisions among large groups but this is generally a more deliberate process over a longer period of time. My understanding is that some Native American tribes use a consensus process as well, but to the outside observer it is harder to understand. Among the traditionalist Hopis for instance, issues can be informally discussed for months with no clear marking of a final decision but when a decision is reached everyone knows about it and agrees with.

In addition to Quakers other roots to the modern popularization of consensus include anarchist and feminist activists with an analysis of power dynamics, and some indigenous communities. It is often argued that consensus leads to better and stronger decisions, that consensus results in decisions that take into account the needs of all of those who participate in the decision-making process. But in activist circles including among anarchists and feminists there are also those who are critical of consensus.  In spite of the claims that some make that consensus is more participatory, more democratic, more egalitarian the critics of consensus argue just the opposite. If you are not well-versed in consensus it can be alienating, one person can block and disrupt the whole process essentially imposing tyranny, and in a knock down drag out consensus debate power goes to the most articulate, the most charismatic, or the ones willing to wait till the very end of a very long meeting.

I had another set of consensus experiences that were important to me back in the 80s. These were decisions around the running of a cooperative household. We were young and everything was intense. We had lots of debates about things that now look trivial. For instance if we should we buy jam with the house food budget. It took me longer then I would like to admit to realize that blocking consensus was something best to be avoided. Here I would like to add what I think is perhaps one of the most important points about using consensus. Consensus works best when those using it have the maturity to use it as a cooperative process. I almost hesitate to say maturity, because that too often is mistaken with age. By maturity I mean the ability to take a broader perspective on any given decision it's not just the decision that matters but the effect of the decision and the decision process on the groups cohesion. 

I don't think that consensus is right for every group. A spirit of cooperation or at least a willingness to cooperate ought to be present. But even a spirit of cooperation does not guarantee the skills or wisdom sufficient to use a consensus process. On the other hand good consensus process has the potential of making consensus useful to a much wider array of groups and organizations.And good consensus can help to build group cohesion.