![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sabotabbyAs promised/threatened, I want to start a discussion about dealing with people in activist organizations and communities that make life difficult for everyone. It's not, of course, just about activists. Toxic individuals surface in every community. In my second home, geekdom, there's just as much if not more problems in this regard. But activism is a space where your sole purpose in functioning as a community is about making the world a better place, and thus it's doubly frustrating when someone's behaviour or person interferes with that.
Our troubled hypothetical activist group is above ground and not engaged in any sort of illegal or clandestine activities, but is nevertheless monitored with intermittent interest by the authorities. It is a small group, with no controls right now on membership because it's trying to grow and reach a wide audience. It doesn't operate on consensus, but votes only happen after long periods of protracted, often pointless discussion.
In an attempt to avoid singling out any one group, cause, or individual, I'm just going to go ahead and use the names of aliens from Babylon 5 to talk about the kinds of tensions that arise.
The group's primary goal is liberating the Narn home world from Centauri oppression. It operates well away from any direct conflict or violence (say, on a space station somewhere) and so there's not much it can do beyond vague awareness raising and campaigns. Lately, even that has been derailed by internecine conflicts. At the centre of these conflicts are the following individuals:
1. Andilo is a Centauri who claims to be progressive, but doesn't quite agree with the group's cause. Several of the Narn members have complained that he's racist; he throws the same accusation right back at the group, suggesting that in the future, it should concentrate less on this one issue and more about issues elsewhere in the galaxy, like the much worse oppression on Drazi, which he accuses the group of not taking seriously enough. Some people in the group feel that he might have only joined to inform to the police or to derail the group's work.
2. Maruelia is also a Centauri, and has been with the group forever. Unfortunately, the older she gets and the more she's persecuted by other Centauri for her unconventional beliefs, the more she's prone to making racist and poorly researched statements about the Centauri and other races. She believes, and spreads, everything she reads on e-mail, including forwards from racist organizations. She's nice enough on a one-on-one basis but many of the group's members worry about her making these statements in public, especially to the media. No one wants to be the one to confront her on her beliefs because her contributions in the past have been valuable, and because she's a sweet old lady.
3. Ha'Rok, a Narn, is a new member, and is very young and enthusiastic. He has a strong emotional and personal connection to the issues, but not a lot of facts at his disposal. At demonstrations, press conferences, and meetings alike, he can always be heard shouting out slogans (some of which are flat-out embarrassing), often drowning out less assertive members who are trying to communicate their message. No one wants him to feel silenced—especially since he does have a personal connection—but his behaviour alienates people who otherwise might be sympathetic, especially women.
4. Everyone likes Mi'Ra and her activist cred is impeccable. But she's addicted to process. Every meeting must start with an emotional check-in and her strict adherence to proper procedures and language makes the meetings last twice as long as they would otherwise. It's great that she's so committed to making the group a safe space, but it's at the point where the focus on process means that very little gets accomplished at the meetings.
5. Phubar is dealing with unaddressed mental health issues. He's solid on the Centauri-Narn issue, but he often goes on rants about unrelated things, disappears for long periods of time, and starts conflicts with other members. No one believes that he should be coerced into treatment, but everyone in the group is increasingly worried about him.
6. Zubar and Kota, both well-respected activists, get drunk at a party. Zubar sexually assaults Kota. He's kicked out of the group, but some of the other members still keep in contact with him. Kota asks—first politely, then less politely—that everyone break off all ties with Zubar.
7. Bamaka is a member of a larger organization. She brings this group's papers to every meeting and constantly talks about them and their work. Some members suspect that she isn't all that interested in the Centauri-Narn issue and is just using the group as a space for recruiting.
I'm pretty sure there are other scenarios; feel free to throw out your own along with actual solutions.
On a quasi-related note, interesting discussion about Readercon and what happens when someone you like does awful things.
Our troubled hypothetical activist group is above ground and not engaged in any sort of illegal or clandestine activities, but is nevertheless monitored with intermittent interest by the authorities. It is a small group, with no controls right now on membership because it's trying to grow and reach a wide audience. It doesn't operate on consensus, but votes only happen after long periods of protracted, often pointless discussion.
In an attempt to avoid singling out any one group, cause, or individual, I'm just going to go ahead and use the names of aliens from Babylon 5 to talk about the kinds of tensions that arise.
The group's primary goal is liberating the Narn home world from Centauri oppression. It operates well away from any direct conflict or violence (say, on a space station somewhere) and so there's not much it can do beyond vague awareness raising and campaigns. Lately, even that has been derailed by internecine conflicts. At the centre of these conflicts are the following individuals:
1. Andilo is a Centauri who claims to be progressive, but doesn't quite agree with the group's cause. Several of the Narn members have complained that he's racist; he throws the same accusation right back at the group, suggesting that in the future, it should concentrate less on this one issue and more about issues elsewhere in the galaxy, like the much worse oppression on Drazi, which he accuses the group of not taking seriously enough. Some people in the group feel that he might have only joined to inform to the police or to derail the group's work.
2. Maruelia is also a Centauri, and has been with the group forever. Unfortunately, the older she gets and the more she's persecuted by other Centauri for her unconventional beliefs, the more she's prone to making racist and poorly researched statements about the Centauri and other races. She believes, and spreads, everything she reads on e-mail, including forwards from racist organizations. She's nice enough on a one-on-one basis but many of the group's members worry about her making these statements in public, especially to the media. No one wants to be the one to confront her on her beliefs because her contributions in the past have been valuable, and because she's a sweet old lady.
3. Ha'Rok, a Narn, is a new member, and is very young and enthusiastic. He has a strong emotional and personal connection to the issues, but not a lot of facts at his disposal. At demonstrations, press conferences, and meetings alike, he can always be heard shouting out slogans (some of which are flat-out embarrassing), often drowning out less assertive members who are trying to communicate their message. No one wants him to feel silenced—especially since he does have a personal connection—but his behaviour alienates people who otherwise might be sympathetic, especially women.
4. Everyone likes Mi'Ra and her activist cred is impeccable. But she's addicted to process. Every meeting must start with an emotional check-in and her strict adherence to proper procedures and language makes the meetings last twice as long as they would otherwise. It's great that she's so committed to making the group a safe space, but it's at the point where the focus on process means that very little gets accomplished at the meetings.
5. Phubar is dealing with unaddressed mental health issues. He's solid on the Centauri-Narn issue, but he often goes on rants about unrelated things, disappears for long periods of time, and starts conflicts with other members. No one believes that he should be coerced into treatment, but everyone in the group is increasingly worried about him.
6. Zubar and Kota, both well-respected activists, get drunk at a party. Zubar sexually assaults Kota. He's kicked out of the group, but some of the other members still keep in contact with him. Kota asks—first politely, then less politely—that everyone break off all ties with Zubar.
7. Bamaka is a member of a larger organization. She brings this group's papers to every meeting and constantly talks about them and their work. Some members suspect that she isn't all that interested in the Centauri-Narn issue and is just using the group as a space for recruiting.
I'm pretty sure there are other scenarios; feel free to throw out your own along with actual solutions.
On a quasi-related note, interesting discussion about Readercon and what happens when someone you like does awful things.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-08-13 08:53 am (UTC)Also, holy cow, so much Palestine activism. Might as well not have bothered with B5 and made things clearer :P
I don't know if I'm naïve, but it seems to me that the key to getting things done is to not encumber oneself with people who get in the way of getting things done. In most of the cases here, the problems arise because people are tolerating non-performance, because they don't want to speak and deal with the problem. People have to accept that disagreement is essential to organizational growth. Debate clarifies things. Dialogue is productive.
There are governance problems in my housing coöp and some people have been trying to deal with them, but they've been so clumsy about it that I have provided only minimal support by attending GMMs so that my vote could count, and share a word of wisdom here or there, because otherwise I'm going to do everything, and I don't have the time/emotional energy. Just this week we had a special GMM because one of my allies decided all by herself that she knew how she would turn around the bad governance on Rent-geared-to-income tenants (RGI), and her attempt flopped in such a miserable way that any further attempt to re-open the issue is probably going to be boo'ed out of the room.
My own fault here was that I didn't tell her that her case wasn't rock solid, and I signed her requisition for a special GMM anyway. I should have withheld my signature and explained why.
Regarding process, well, people can use the process to demolish the process. If it's a democratic decision, and the majority agree to make the process lighter, what are they waiting for?
There can be a governance meeting once in a blue moon to review the main principles of the organization, both to state what the organization is for/against, and what the terms of engagement are, with a three strikes policy for people violating the latter. (There should be unanimity on the former, otherwise the group has larger problems that it needs to deal with first.)
At the aforementioned GMM, one member on my side of The Struggle became very disruptive, hectoring people, cutting the current speaker off, snickering, etc. The moderator stated a three strikes policy, and she was still very lenient about it, but eventually the member had to be kicked out. The moderator, instead of asking the person to remove themselves, asked the whole group if they would vote on removing the person. An overwhelming majority voted to kick the person out, and then the member didn't have a choice.
Anyway, I think having clear membership rules is a huge help. The group can always use the threat of kicking someone out as social coercion to get a member to shape up.
no subject
Date: 2012-08-13 02:23 pm (UTC)LOL, well, I was trying to be vague. I've seen the same tensions between, say, white and POC activists in anti-racist groups. Some of the examples I gave are actually not from Palestine activism, but in the interests of keeping the same scenario—well. Personality problems are personality problems.
There can be a governance meeting once in a blue moon to review the main principles of the organization, both to state what the organization is for/against, and what the terms of engagement are, with a three strikes policy for people violating the latter. (There should be unanimity on the former, otherwise the group has larger problems that it needs to deal with first.)
I think it's these sorts of meetings (visioning!) that I've actually found most alienating. Probably because they don't happen once in a blue moon, but tend to bleed into every single meeting.
But yeah, it's largely a refusal to deal with the issues. Especially in small groups trying to grow, where you don't want to lose anyone.
no subject
Date: 2012-08-15 12:46 am (UTC)Yeah, my point was in part to keep the visioning separate from the operations; otherwise if you change the vision regularly everyone has to re-adjust to a new reality all the time and that's alienating.