About the 1/21 GA

[Jeremy]

Comrades,

As a member of the facilitation team last night, I'd like to thank you for your patience with us. In a sense, we erred grievously last night. It is our role to facilitate your collective, consensus decisions. We tried so hard last night to help you arrive at one. But we can't facilitate the formation of a consensus that does not exist.

I'd argue that the breakdown of process last night was not a result of ORVA's lack of discipline per se. The process cannot create consensus where constituents of the body are not willing to accept it. That trust of one another, the ability to rely on each other, and the desire to ascertain a position that represents us collectively -- even when it is uncomfortable individually -- is the precondition for the process. Without that, the process is an inhuman machine, devoid of context, compassion, and the elements of purpose that bring us together. While adhering to the perfunctory rules can guide us to what that trust, reliance, and desire might look and feel like, it cannot dictate it to us. We can always, in other words, say "fuck you" and disruptively leave.

The facilitation team came very close to what I think would have been the right move: tabling the proposal. It is wrong for facilitation to put so much energy into corralling people who, not universally but substantially, place more emphasis on achieving the right outcome than in the way we achieve that outcome. Those people are not wrong; they are simply in a state of mind unsuited to the task of consensus. Browbeating them into that state of mind is both hopeless and precisely the kind of belligerence that saps our spirits. So we plunge into the process as a substitute for accepting the nature of the situation, and then we wonder why the fruits of the process yield no insight.

I do not believe there are questions on which we are incapable of reaching consensus. However, I do very much believe the process of General Assembly will not always bring about that consensus. In a way, it's kind of affirming that we cannot kick people out easily. It requires us to come up with more concrete, less grandiose means of dealing with this problem. 

I'd like to propose one: next time Chris shows up and goes out of process, facilitation should mic check him. No consensus expulsion needed; just facilitation using the tools at their disposal. We focus on elaborate deliberations when all we need is for people to take action. I'll embrace chaos before I embrace despair.

One more thing: the issue of safety motivating Chris's expulsion is one that I find very disturbing. It has been disturbing to me since before Occupy, in the anarchist activist circles I've been participating in off and on. On the one hand, you're asking people to take a stand against the powers that be. This is an _inherently unsafe position_. On the other hand, we place an emphasis on creating safe spaces so that we can maximize the engaged, actualized population of our movement. These two propositions are in conflict.

If people seek out Occupy Richmond because they want a safe space, and if they place this end over the philosophical ends of the movement, then it seems natural that blocks like the collective one aired last night will always tie us up. ORVA is not like the state; it cannot provide anything to you that you do not yourself work to realize. It is not, in other words, designed to provide an entitlement. 

The issue cannot be the expulsion of risk, but on the proper amount to accept. People who cannot operate in an unsafe environment are, to my mind, ill suited to fighting the system -- as much as I might like and respect them. The comfort zone has to be abandoned if we are to find the kind of radical consensus that can strip our system of its legitimacy. We take too much comfort in process. We take too much comfort in demanding others provide us peace of mind. There are underlying matters to be attended that are worth realizing for the very reason that they are difficult to wrap our hands around. Don't be discouraged by the lack of consensus; seek instead to step to the left, or to the right, and question its premises. 

Consensus is not a synonym for "what I want" or even "what we want". It is a state of common purpose founded in trust. It is a new identity for each of us, a social "me" that is as mysterious and rewarding as the individual "me". Have the courage to step outside what we think ORVA is and discover what it actually is, warts and all.

Thanks for your attention. Solidarity!

- Jeremy

"Out of nothing we will imagine our values, and by this act of invention we shall live." - Hakim Bey, Immediatism

[Leyla Peachy]

Thank you, Thank you, Thank you , Thank you Jeremy. I can't thank you enough for your words. 

Leyla

--
Unify & Surrender

[David Irving]

let's try the mike check thing. if that doesn't work, let's develop something else, and keep trying until we hit on the right thing. the facilitation did a number of things right last night, too. like breaking at times, like unthreateningly but firmly asking certain ones to stop for a moment, and quite a few other things. so take some credit. it wasn't perfect, but we need some patience. after all we're crafting a new approach and we don't exactly have good models. no one said this would be easy, and we need to give ourselves a break.

Anger is a choice.

I do think we need a safe internal space, one where everyone is comfortable so we can carry on dialogue and planning creatively. The things we are confronting are indeed not safe, and we have to step outside our comfort zone. But to do that we have to feel like we have a safe space to return to. And safe means different things to different people. It's about perceptions, and each person perceives safety differently. A person who has been raped or attacked in any way for that matter, may feel threatened, although the environment is perfectly safe to the outside observer. Indeed many a grown man does not feel safe in the walls of a Catholic church, for ugly reasons. I do not always feel safe speaking, because I have always been in an environment where I had to always say the right thing exactly right. Gradually, I am learning to put my fear away. There are many with much more serious fears that I have never confronted. (BTW does anyone know where "D" is? He seemed to have had some recent trauma in his family and I am very concerned for him.)

Anger is a choice. Also a feeling. maybe we could have some anger management workshops? I know when I am angry, it's hard for me to focus on a vision or anything else.  Just a thought.

thanks for your thoughtfulness of expression, jeremy.

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 12:33 PM, Jeremy <jere...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

Rev. David J. Irving, Jr., MAcc, CPA/CIA

A & B Financial Services

7278 Hanover Green Drive

Mechanicsville, VA 23111

O 804.730.9653

F 804.746.7814

C 804.833.8099

[Mark Carter]

It is kind of dishearting Jeremy that it still a BIG challenge as it has GROWN to be that we, us, them, they, are challenged this way on real issues. Lacking the mind power or maybe the will and understanding of long term as well as right NOW ways to maturally, respectfully, conciously, resovle and move forward. We can, I can do much better!

 

I always appreciate your insight and contribution (and others) through it all. 

 

your Brother,

 

~Mark