permaculture

[jamesdavid Sneed <harvestcircle@hotmail.com>]

I wonder if the division between heirarchy and decentralization is sometimes 
too "either-or", when small, decentralized heirarchies may be an avenue to 
use strong leadership. Consensus without strong individuals can SOMETIMES 
lead to weak groups, vulnerable to outside conditions that end up "steering 
the drifting boat".
I do think that small heirarchies that are limited in their vertical 
intgration must have a common theme to be effective, be it philosophical, 
spiritual, familial, or other. But then, groups using consensus also need 
that cohesion. Also necessary for those limited heirarchies is the true 
willingness of the leadership to consult and listen to all members, with real 
inclusiveness. This is probably less possible if a group exceeds fifty or so 
members.
One ptfall I found that ruined several groups run by consensus was the silly 
idea of "consensus minus one" which was promoted as a way to avoid being 
bogged down by a stick-in-the-mud individual but always became a way of 
ignoring the wisdom or concerns of the last holdout to consensus. Consensus 
minus one is nothing like consensus and denatures the whole purpose.
How do other permaculture groups deal with this?
 
> From: toby@patternliteracy.com
> Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 14:54:09 -0700
> To: permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: [permaculture] hierarchies and networks
> 
> One subject we touched on in the recent certification thread was new and 
> old tools for change, and the difference between hierarchical and 
> decentralized organizations and tools. I'd said that I once had high hopes 
> for decentralized leadership tools, like consensus, but was disappointed by 
> how rarely they live up to their promise. I've been skeptical of the value 
> of these and similar methods to actually produce change, and have found the 
> older tools--strong leadership, old-style voting--at least as effective 
> (though I still prefer inclusive versions of these tools to exclusive).
> 
> I was catching up on a stack of New Yorker magazines this morning, and in 
> the Oct 4 issue there's an article that fits right in to this conversation, 
> "Small Change" by Malcolm Gladwell. Gladwell is known for his book "The 
> Tipping Point" and in general being a whole systems thinker. He's made the 
> points I would have liked to have made. I was intrigued that he feels 
> network tools aren't good for doing design, and that they are better at 
> preserving the status quo than changing it. So here's a quote from the 
> article. 
> 
> "Unlike hierarchies, with their rules and procedures, networks aren’t 
> controlled by a single central authority. Decisions are made through 
> consensus, and the ties that bind people to the group are loose. This 
> structure makes networks enormously resilient and adaptable in low-risk 
> situations. Wikipedia is a perfect example. . . .
> 
> "There are many things, though, that networks don’t do well. Car companies 
> sensibly use a network to organize their hundreds of suppliers, but not to 
> design their cars. No one believes that the articulation of a coherent 
> design philosophy is best handled by a sprawling, leaderless organizational 
> system. Because networks don’t have a centralized leadership structure and 
> clear lines of authority, they have real difficulty reaching consensus and 
> setting goals. They can’t think strategically; they are chronically prone 
> to conflict and error. How do you make difficult choices about tactics or 
> strategy or philosophical direction when everyone has an equal say?
> 
> "The Palestine Liberation Organization originated as a network, and the 
> international-relations scholars Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni and Calvert 
> Jones argue in a recent essay in International Security that this is why it 
> ran into such trouble as it grew: “Structural features typical of 
> networks—the absence of central authority, the unchecked autonomy of rival 
> groups, and the inability to arbitrate quarrels through formal 
> mechanisms—made the P.L.O. excessively vulnerable to outside manipulation 
> and internal strife.”
> 
> "In Germany in the nineteen-seventies, they go on, “the far more unified 
> and successful left-wing terrorists tended to organize hierarchically, with 
> professional management and clear divisions of labor." . . . They seldom 
> betrayed their comrades in arms during police interrogations. Their 
> counterparts on the right were organized as decentralized networks, and had 
> no such discipline. These groups were regularly infiltrated, and members, 
> once arrested, easily gave up their comrades. Similarly, Al Qaeda was most 
> dangerous when it was a unified hierarchy. Now that it has dissipated into 
> a network, it has proved far less effective.
> 
> "The drawbacks of networks scarcely matter if the network isn’t interested 
> in systemic change—if it just wants to frighten or humiliate or make a 
> splash—or if it doesn’t need to think strategically. But if you’re taking 
> on a powerful and organized establishment you have to be a hierarchy . . . .
> 
> "But [network-based activism] is simply a form of organizing which favors 
> the weak-tie connections that give us access to information over the 
> strong-tie connections that help us persevere in the face of danger. It 
> shifts our energies from organizations that promote strategic and 
> disciplined activity and toward those which promote resilience and 
> adaptability. It makes it easier for activists to express themselves, and 
> harder for that expression to have any impact. The instruments of social 
> media are well suited to making the existing social order more efficient. 
> They are not a natural enemy of the status quo. If you are of the opinion 
> that all the world needs is a little buffing around the edges, this should 
> not trouble you. But if you think that there are still lunch counters out 
> there that need integrating [Gladwell mentioned civil rights activists] it 
> ought to give you pause."
> 
> The full article is at 
> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all
> 
> Toby
> http://patternliteracy.com
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> permaculture mailing list
> permaculture@lists.ibiblio.org
> Subscribe, unsubscribe, change your user configuration here:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/permaculture
> Read the public message archives here:
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/sympa/arc/permaculture
> Command to put in your browser's Google search box to search these archives:
> site:lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/permaculture [search string (omit the 
> brackets)]
> List Usage & Guidelines:
> http://ibiblio.org/permaculture/documents/permaculturelistguide.faq
> Permaculture http://www.ibiblio.org/permaculture
> Permaculture Mailing List Blog
> http://permaculturelist.blogspot.com
> permaculture forums http://www.permies.com/permaculture-forums
> List contact: permacultureforum@gmail.com