On Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 9:29 AM Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
But in the past I have felt quite strongly that something was really really wrong, but it turned out it was just a factor of me being unaware of workflow difficulties experienced by others.
I can subscribe to the sentiment. All the criticism that I might have about another person, or about some procedure, it is due to me not being aware of the difficulties being experienced. This is why I am very careful when expressing criticism because that lack of understanding is reciprocal, and the other person might not know what is going on in me either, and might even not realized of what from my perspective looks like an issue.
The way I describe the current governance system of the organized part of the global movement is an "unintended oligarchy". I don't think anyone ever wanted to have an oligarchy, but to take decisions, to be in the loop, requires that someone must have time to spend on it, and that they are given the trust to be in the decision-making processes. On one hand we have a group of people who can spend time following issues (or are even paid for it), participating in committees, going to conferences, and building in-person trust that later on they can capitalize with easier access to power roles. And on the other hand we have people that, as Yaroslav said, do not participate in real-life activities and therefore they are simply ignored and not considered for relevant roles, because they didn't build the in-person trust or the curriculum that people in the organized part of the movement think that it is important.
I consider impossible for any organization to escape the "iron law of oligarchy", and that in itself is liberating, because instead of wasting time pretending "openness" and "inclusiveness" we can focus our energies in having the best kind of oligarchy. To guarantee some renewal and to safeguard the trust in the movement, an effort should be made to allow rank-and-file members both to influence decision-making (as Franz mentioned, by giving them support and by opening discussions), and to have a path for them to join the "ruling class" if they have some basic skills and they are inclined to it. The first point is easier to attain than the second, because power is self-perpetuating and people tend to give preference to those that think like them or have a particular background or career.
There is an interesting anecdote that happened to the economist Kenneth E. Boulding. After graduating in Oxford he applied for a fellowship for Christ Church, and by mistake he received the recommendation letters that he asked from several of his economy professors. They agreed that he was brilliant and very intelligent, but all of them concluded that "he is not one of us". Diversity of thought is not always appreciated.
A certain homogeneity of values is necessary, because that is the basic tenet of a cultural identity, which is required to attract and retain volunteers with belongingness, and to inspire others with our values. Of course those values should be reflected in everything we do, not just in writing, but having a code in writing about governance, decision-making procedures, dissent, diversity, etc would help to know what to expect and it would reduce the frustration.
Cheers, Micru