Forum Post: Does Consensus Squelch Creativity?
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 23, 2011, 2:32 p.m. EST by brucenow
(2)
from Oakland, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
I have to say that though I like consensus building, seems there should be a limit to it. In seeking solutions, a consensus arrives at one kind of solution. The solution may fail, and another one sought. The process repeats itself. This is a very linear model of self governance and of course time consuming. On the other hand if creativity is valued over consensus, then multiple solutions can be explored at once.
So as I understand OccupyWallStreet, some people are writing a list of demands, others are afraid creating a list of demands is playing the establishment's game, and still others are concerned that such demands could be co-opted by political parties. At the heart of each group is the desire to create a more humane world through a united front.
Unfortunately, there is nothing creative about a united front. A united front is a sought after power base from which to move forward. Dissenting voices are quieted through self restraint, the desire to belong, the desire for any kind of decision, subtle manipulations, etc.
The creative alternative is to go forward with multiple fronts in multiple directions with continual monitoring, assessment, and inter-connectivity.
Holding consensus up as the one measure of community stifles creative explorations and inhibits action when a multiplicity of actions is what is needed. What are your thoughts on this?
One action you can take concerning the Keystone XL Pipeline from the Canadian Tar Sands to the Gulf of Mexico is to go to my website, http://PunkObama.org, click on "More PunkOgrams HERE" and then click on "The Keystone XL Pipeline" to send President Obama a punkogram on this issue. It is his decision alone. No Congress, No Republicans, No Tea Party, No Excuses. See Bill McKibben's interview on this at: http://current.com/shows/countdown/videos/activist-bill-mckibben-on-why-tar-sands-pipeline-is-game-over-for-the-climate.
Consensus on what is more important.
Stopping that pipeline is a major job. The unions are even selling us out on that.
This is a really refreshing post. I agree entirely that the very notion of a "united front" stifles creativity and suppresses dissenting voices. The anarchist writer Wolfi Landstreicher makes this point clear when he explains that:
"Consensus has been described quite well as a method for obtaining people’s support without allowing them to express themselves autonomously. Starting from the idea that the needs of the collective take priority over the individuals involved, it seeks a decision that no one in the group will actively oppose, and once such a decision is reached (usually through hours and hours of tedious discussion that, as likely as not, merely wears down some of those in the group), everyone is expected to abide by it. Achieving consensus among any more than a few people is necessarily a matter of finding the lowest common denominator between all involved and accepting this lowest common denominator as the highest level of action." (http://www.reocities.com/kk_abacus/vb/wd4-2decide.html)
In any case, it's good to see people expressing this level of critical thought, so cheers.
Democracy is mob rule. Abolish money and set up technocracy with a strong constitution for the technocrats to impliment. Let locals design their communities. Plato said democracy is one level above tyranny. America has not had real democracy since the CIA killed JFK.
depends on your view of the world. not to long ago everyone thought it was flat.
You make some good points here, actually. Here's my two cents, spread it if you're with it:
In my opinion, the heart of the issue is campaign finance reform. We need to have all political campaigns funded by the taxpayers from a separate fund. An amount would be designated say: 50 million dollars or 25 or whatever is a reasonable amount to actually travel and give speeches, and provide security for the candidates etc. And that NO OTHER MONEY be used, and that any contribution from ANY private donor big or small be made unlawful. AND REMOVE SPECIAL INTEREST LOBBIES from Washington. THEN we can begin to re-center American Democracy around the electoral process and the actual WILL of the people. Right now, politicians tell their "constituents" what they want to hear and make all of the promises they need to make, and then, newly elected (or re-elected) arrive in Washington and are immediately cornered and overwhelmed by all of the special interests that actually funded their campaign and dictate policy, and these politicians no longer connect "doing the will of the people" with "being a successful politician." Campaign financing and the lobbyists who OWN Washington, and every politician on both sides of the so-called “aisle” in their back pockets: THIS is the straw that is stirring this corrupt drink right now. Our leaders no longer need to act in the interests of the people they serve. Moreover, it is actually political suicide for them to do so. THAT, I feel, is a good "starting point" for one of this beautiful and exhilarating movement's central demands. REFORM CAMPAIGN FINANCE and ELIMINATE LOBBYISTS from Washington now...
I agree, even if it takes a constitutional amendment. Lobbyists should make their case in a general forum, not behind closed doors to individual congresspersons. Congresspersons could get email alerts from lobbyists notifying them of a posted position.
I understand your view on this- but the supreme court has already made a determination that these type of limits are unconstitutional. To do what you are asking for would require an amendment passed and that is VERY difficult. It would be impossible to stop lobbyists as well. There is a good reason to have lobbying- many of our laws are so complicated that it requires experts from different fields to explain the repercussions of laws to our representatives.
Again, i empathize with your position. An option that would work is to have a political party that is dedicated to solely helping the working class of the US. And opening the system to where we can have MULTIPLE parties.
I'm worried that multiple parties can never happen with the way the system is currently structured....we already have that, essentially, but Green and Tea Partiers alike rarely ever exceed 3% of the vote in National Elections. I added the demands about special interest lobbies, after a debate with another forum'er who convinced me that campaign finance reform was not enough, that the special lobbies were the real culprits...why not reform finance AND regulate lobbies?...it's one thing to provide counsel to a politician on a sensitive issue that affects your constituents, it is quite another to promise to bankroll their re-election campaigns for the next decade if they vote one way on certain key issues....Also, I think saying that a constitutional amendment is too ambitious is a mistake right now....I think if it was ever possible to amend the constitution it's now....And it might be the only thing that will do what is required....
I can't say I agree with you on this stuff....bt thanks so much for offering intelligent feedback...I will continue thinking about this one...
Outlaw political parties altogether and have candidates nominated who champion particular platforms. Here's a non party solution for 2012: http://www.americanselect.org/
I'm behind that... I don't buy the "All we need is a good party to emerge or a great leader" argument anymore, I call it the, "If only we had FDR again" model....the system has cancer at it's core....if we don't root it out now..it WILL destroy us eventually....