NewPoliticalSystem  Index  Home  New  Links Groups  

By Franz Isemann

This text is an abridged version of the German reader: Entscheidungsfindung von unten und kreative Gruppenprozesse (decision finding bottom up and creative group proceedings) www.projektwerkstatt.de/von-unten 

1. Part 1

2. Part 2

3. Part 3

4. Part 4

5. Part 5

Part 1

Grievances in "horizontal" discussions:

1. dominant behavior
2. informal ("grey") hierarchies
3. suppression of autonomy
4. macho – like commanding

These features are found in movements, friendships, residences, caravanning, camping, conferences, seminars, workshops etc. Elites rule everywhere; centralism, control, steering, can hardly be avoided. But it can be brought to attention, and there are methods to disrupt it.

Contents:

1. Basics
2. Concepts and frames for securing equal rights in communicative proceedings
3. Methods of Decision Finding; retrenchment of dominance; creative group work;

D. Appendix (bottom up organization)

1. retrenchment of dominance, keynotes for decision finding bottom up, analysis of problems, forms of hierarchies, orientation towards transparency and open end
2. elites in political movements, typical behavior of informal leader cliques
3. how to detect modern forms of commanding, subtle forms of dominance, rhetorics, manipulation, unmasking and overcoming
4. become choosy, analogies with herds, sheep, etc.

Not only practice is missing, but also theory of what structures for deciding and acting, free of hierarchy, could look like. The aims of antihierarchic processes of cooperation, discussion, and decision finding:

• exchange of information
• new ideas and initiatives
• efficient planning of activities
• positioning
• reflection, analysis, evaluation
• strengthening of group performance
• support, solidarity
• equal rights in team work, autonomy of individuals and groups
• use and furthering of total knowledge and experience
• development of methods for exchange, planning, acting, evaluation
• fostering of creativity
• change of individual and group behavior

Decision finding bottom up is a target of political work, which helps to reduce power and dominance. The basic precondition for success of decision finding bottom up is the active participation of the participants themselves. Permanent reflection of the process is necessary. Without willful and resolute interfering, the hierarchic structures reproduce automatically.

First of all we have to sort out and to label hierarchic structures. That also requires reflection of our own (dominant?) behavior. A check list to that end can not be given, since every context and situation contains different kinds of hierarchic relations. Each process of bottom up decision finding is unique, and only continuous reflection of all participants about their internal relations in a given situation can overcome the tendency towards the building of hierarchies.

There are formal and informal hierarchies. The formal ones are at least more transparent than the informal ones. However, also within the formal hierarchies there exist informal ones, which might even add to the formal ones. A great advantage of power minded people is their exclusive or easier access to resources. With better information and preparation, the leader can easily outmanouver the ordinary members. The grass rooters can only counter the advantages of the leading group by intense and time consuming building of networks and acquisition of information, datas etc.

Informal hierarchies can be formed unconsciously, but also intentionally. Rhetorical tricks, defaming of certain persons, prearranged strategies of the turn of speaking, of assertions and contradicitions in discussions, are some means of informal dominance. Continuous cooperation in centers, offices, studios, labs, and the like, informal gatherings, lead to the formation of inner circles, cliques, nucleus groups. Segregation and discrimination of the others is common consequence. Unintentional dominance stems from unreflected structures and from the lack of sensibility for the formation of power.

Differences of social values caused by different roles in society or by different genetic or hormonal composure (gender problem, child-adult relation), or differences in social prestige (proletarian-academic, native-foreigner) also lead to unintended hierarchic structures. Dominant persons, as a rule, are not aware of their cultural or natural advantages or privileged position. Therefore these discrepancies must be disclosed, and concerted action must reduce them. In order to check on one’s own or a groups hierarchic behavior one must at times try to watch from a "meta-level", that means, one must consider the success with regard to the overall goals, as if one were looking from outside.

If we aim at antihierarchic behavior in all human affairs, we must also exercise antihierarchic discussing and decision finding internally, because for political work our internal function is also part of society, part of what we stand for. But hierarchic behavior is prevalent in political life, everywhere in society, and also in the mind frames of most (or all) people. We cannot insist on a world free of hierarchy as a precondition, only as a final utopic aim, which will never be totally reached. To reduce hierarchy is a never ending task and requires resources, reflection and ability to criticise and to accept criticism. Objects of criticism are not the persons themselves. But it may, when criticising something, be difficult to convey the message in the right manner. We must be careful, not to hurt persons’ feelings. We must show empathy, friendliness, esteem and respect. Intervention against dominance must verbalize dominant behavior, and not defame the dominant person. Solidarity with underprivileged groups should not lead to criticism of their dominant target group only (feministic emancipation), but also keep in mind those, who have no lobby to defend themselves (children). Don’t replace dominance by introducing another kind of dominance (moderator, committee etc) Avoid focus on "all decide everything", which leads only to centralization, where dominance over a great number of people is imminent.

The right strategy is to develop a continuous process. For "developing" you need creative thinking and experimenting with discussions and with decision finding. Learning by doing.

5 important ingredients of bottom up decision finding:

• transparency
• autonomy
• equal rights
• polished conduct of dispute
• reflection

Invitations to meetings, discussions, evaluations, etc must contain all information relevant for the preparation, so that all participants have equal chances. Try to avoid the building of "information elites". Autonomous small groups are better than plenums. But there should be cooperation and exchange of information and ideas among them. Avoid isolation, segregation and singular coexistence. Protest against racist or sexist or other discriminating behavior immediately. Dispute is the necessary tool of antihierarchic communication. Don’t harmonize by all means, don’t cover up conflicts. Consense is not the only way to meet decisions. Conflicts can be productive. They may eventually lead to real and genuine harmony.

No one should go on and on in repeating his/her own standpoint (argument). Repetition is a sign of fixation and does not allow for development.

Some principles:

• direct and open intervention
• address conflicts at once, no deviation, no delay.
• don’t strive for the objective truth, see discussing as open process, not static but dynamic
• create a climate free of discrimination, free of fear
• the importance of reflection, also about yourself

 

A 2. Elites in political movements
There are political groups (left ?, progressive?), in which the words "sovereign authority" or "power" are tabooed. In such groups the forms of mastering are concealed. Manipulating and influencing people, and acting behind scene are the significant features there. It is often more difficult to unmask those practices, than it would be to oppose open repression. In that sense, "elites" can be especially dangerous, because they exercise the art of manipulating and veiling, often without being aware of it. Elites are open networks of fellows who help each other directly and/or indirectly to reach dominant positions; these are not conspiracies but pluralistic; they are united only in the common goal to hold power and control. Motto: "one good turn deserves another". Elite power rests on better faculty to act and to influence. If you have many and good contacts, you have a good chance to be part of the elite.

They may talk of "basic democracy" and of "networks", but they do not act that way. They prefer "plenum" and "consent", they avoid experiments with "open platforms" for press contacts as well as for action. They are reluctant to sacrifice internal censorship.

Instead, anti-hierarchic forms of working would require project rooms with infrastructure for everyone, without locks or keys, and internet-platforms unmoderated and without passwords.

A 3. Detection of more subtle forms of dominance
Language is a revealing phenomenon. If "war" is called "humanitarian measure", you know, where you are. When questions are put in a form, where a single veto is sufficient to steer the course of the elite, then the wrong questions were asked and immediate protest is necessary. The command: "do this, do that" may be hidden behind the phrase: "it would be better for you if you …". Hidden manipulation lies also in phrases like: "I find your idea good, however …" or "we have already discussed that and decided otherwise" or "we have tried that, but it did not work" ot "that was not agreed upon". To decipher if such phrases are harmless or hierarchic, always check wether the speech supports the building of dominance or not. Using that method you will be in a better position to sort out the persons who try to dominate the others. When you observe people sticking together in coffee breaks, they may prepare for concerted action in the next plenum.

Groups of persons (NGOs, parties, movements), especially if they intend to be unhierarchic, very often behave like a herd of sheep. They dress in the same way, have the same peculiar preferences for food, sing in a chorus, or shout slogans unisono. They are full of hatred against others, especially the state, the police, the establishment, the Reps, etc. Among the many white sheep there are also some black ones, a herd within the herd. There are also newcomers, lambs, playful and wanton, revolting or backing out, and then being brought back and being reeducated to become real mature sheep.

But there are also a few, who do not follow suit at all. They do just what they want. They resemble the giddy and goatish goats. They break through the fences of consent and do not accept authorities. And that makes the sheep get nervous.

When the herd of sheep is left alone, some of them take the role of sheep-dogs and control the other sheep. They also adopt the phrases: "that does not work", "that would be risking the whole plan", "you do not fit in here", "it is better for us"

It is of course quite functional to organize in a form of a herd. But let us not ban the goats. They transmit the dream, that a different world might be possible. (this paragraph is the summary of an article by the author jaycee)

B. 1. Open Space Technology (OST
This is a relatively new way of organizing camps, congresses etc. It only sets the frame for the participants to organize their own timetables, agendas, proceedings. Some called it "the systematic coffee break". It begins with everybody publishing his ideas or matter to be discussed on a notice board, inviting interested people to assemble at a given time in a certain room for discussing the topic. Participants are allowed to enter and to leave or change groups at any time as they wish. There are no rigid preset timetables. The quantity of participants indicates the relevance of the theme and how promising the discussion might turn out.

Open Space is a good try to reduce dominance and establishment of elites. It must have a center (central market space, central notice boards) for the transfer of group findings and for summarizing the results, for keeping the various groups in contact and informing of changes of times, venues, agendas etc. (interim results, process protocol, modification of programmes etc)

The method of "Open Space" must be explained thoroughly at the beginning of the meeting, so that the further course of events can run without interruption or disturbance. The participants must understand and discover that everything depends on them only. Open Space differs from the informal coffee break only with respect to transfer, transparency and flow of information. (feed back). There must be good facilities for publishing on the centrally located walls and boards. All the venues, where the various groups meet, and their time tables, must be available to everybody, and all groups must admit entering and leaving at any time (exeptions for limited periods possible). The diversity of persons taking part is one of the main factors for quality and success. There must be ample time; time pressure is a killer of Open Space.

According to mentalities there will form two kinds of roles in Open Space: the checkers (initiating) and the consumers. But everyone can chose his/her role since no expert is needed for suggesting a theme to be discussed. Open Space is not meant to inseminate (schooling) but rather to discover (brain storming)

Open Space can not as a method demolish informal dominant structures or behavior, but it serves as a frame facilitating participants to reduce dominance.

A good start for Open Space are the socalled chat rounds in the beginning, where all participants in the large assembly hall move to and fro until a stop signal asks them to chat with the people nearby, thus forming groups at random. This gives especially shy people and newcomers a fair chance to make their ideas heard. After each chat round new ideas should immediately be written on paper and fixed on a pin wall.

A short phase of organizing the papers (similar or redundant papers brought together) will swiftly lead to an overview of themes and groups.

During the course of Open Space there may occur phases of frustration or resignation. Elites, those who act, the actors, may pretty soon take the lead over the others. So, also in Open Space "emancipation" on the one hand can only succeed in union with "empathy" on the other. It also relies on truthfulness and open speech. Participants should not leave or evade problems, but express there angers and desires. Open Space will more or less fail (regarding the reduction of dominance), if the organizers just use it, to persue their own politics in a camouflaged manner. It can produce very good results in every respect, if all organizers and participants accept an open end process. (Whatever happens, it is the only thing, that could happen)

Literature for study of Open Space:

Harrison Owen: Open Space Technology (Barret-Koehler, San Francisco)
www.michaelmpannwitz.de/openspace.htm 
www.openspaceworld.org

B 2. Open Platform
Larger groups of people are confronted with the reality, that now and then coordination and overview about the flow of information must be put up with. Even worse (?) there comes the point, when decisions for all have to be taken. Then structures of organisation emerge, usually a mixture of vertical (central) and horizontal (independent) structures. Building of formal hierarchy then cannot be avoided. (councils, speakers, coordination board, and so on)

• search for the only model to be the best solution for everything
• one only method to cater for all problems and requirements
• institution of dominant bodies, even if rotation of persons is safeguarded
• generating of subcomittees, subcenters. Subdivision of issues lead to many competing centers

We must give up the idea of a fully comprehensive organisation scheme. That idea is in itself an idea of dominance. So in order to diminish hierarchy, we experiment with the model "Open Platform"

• every actor can organize
• equal rights are protected; free access for all to equipment, address lists, rooms, information, time tables, etc
• multiplicity given by different concepts of organisation
• cooperation between different autonomous groups: joint ventures; mutual use of resources; free agreements.

www.opentheory.org/herrschaftsfrei

Open Platforms are causing irritations, because they are zones, where the normal structures of dominance lose control. There are yet very few examples of good Open Platforms. The first experiment was staged in Munich to protest against the NATO meeting, February 1^st to 3^rd 2002. A good success was the "open press platform" there. See also www.coforum.de

The principle of Open Platform can also be applied with camps and congresses. It can also take place in combination with a more conducted plenar center and open space activities.

B 3. Role Play and Simulation
This is an instrument to make participants aware of the different aspects and viewpoints of different roles. It is that awareness, which helps to reduce dominant behavior. It requires a play director, who perhaps should also be exchanged at certain intervals, in oprder not to give him to much power to influence the play.

This, I feel, is not the place to go into detail about this more guided endeavour to evoke changes in our behavior

1. because it would need much space to describe it properly
2. because the range of application is much smaller, I think, as compared to B1 and B2

You can study a report on such a simulation workshop about the theme "eco-energy bottom up" by writing an Email to k.bayer@berlin.de

C . Decision Finding Bottom Up
Different situations and conditions require different methods. Participants should know about those methods. They should share their experiences, to have a "pool" of methods. Which method to use or how to make use of a method also depends on the character, history and purpose of the group. If we deal with a formal organisation, even small provisions for participation and mor equality are better than nothing.

C 1. Methods leading to Decision Finding
We must accept that any decision taken means hierarchy, means fixation which is binding others and so creates in fact vertical structure or at least graded structure. Also the decision finding process itself presupposes a kind of hierarchy. It requires people to be given the right in advance, to organize the decision finding, so to say "top down". Decisions must be made, not always, not everywhere, not in all cases, but only where it is really necessary. It is obvious that the hierarchy already exists before the decision. As long persons or groups negotiate free agreements with each other, they act only on their own behalf and their own decision. Results of cooperation and of free agreements cannot be called hierarchic. In that case the question of majority or of consensus does not arise even. It is irrelevant.

So, decision finding methods are principally meant for measures to be taken in an existing (or anticipated) hierarchic structure. Then, the main problem of anti-hierarchic ways of acting is not the question of consensus versus voting, but the question is, if and when something has to be decided upon.

Majority Vote
Among two or more possibilities, the selection of one obligatory choice (binding all participants), can be reached by the minority giving way to the majority’s preference. The majority’s will is found out by either one or several votings for and/or against each of the possible choices. Precondition for the implementation and execution of the contents of a decision is the existing of an executive power. If there are no institutions, governing bodies, etc, to carry into effect, what has been chosen, there is no need for and no consequence from the decision arrived at by voting.

Very often a variety of possibilities are reduced during the course of discussion, so that only two alternatives (yes – no) will be left over. This is in other respects not desirable because it narrows the chances to find better solutions, and it diminishes the urge for creativity.

It is important to agree beforehand, whether a voting to lead to a decision should take place at all – or not. It is not good to have an unobliging polling just to find out the majority's opinion. That, in fact also leads to an informal decision in practice, though it was perhaps meant to lead towards consensus. Thus the instruments for determination are veiled or alienated, which cannot be in the interest of reducing dominance.

Consensus or Consent ?
If all participants share the same conviction, they have consensus and no determination by voting is necessary. The aim to reach consensus via discussions is an honorable one, but only satisfactory in small groups. And even there you never know, how much the individual identifies with the given issue.

A combination of both, voting and the discovery (or preparing for) consensus could be called a method to lead to consent. The Youth’s World Congress for Environment held in 2001 invested a graded system of 4-step voting to reach consent. After discussion and the formulation of a proposal had taken place, there was to make a choice among 4 degrees of affirmation, resp. rejection.

1. I consent without reservation
2. I consent with reservation
3. I do not consent. I would accept the outcome of the polling but not contribute to its implementation
4. I say "veto" to the proposal

The proposals became resolutions only where a. and b. got the majority over c. (and d.) AND if there was not a single veto. This method was meant for backing resolutions, not for choosing one of two or several alternatives.

The drawback of this kind of seeking consent as well as of majority voting, is also, that the polling is only on a formal proposal, whilst other possible formulations (contents, style) remain in the dark. Since many of the participants might not be interested in the proposal as such, the method described above can also lead to polling without motivation and thus to the influencing of the participants to assist towards the arrival at a certain declaration (in our case) and thus to become hostages of the will of a much smaller majority or even of a minority. So this method can also be looked at as being rather repressive instead of anti-hierarchic. In that respect, consent seeking is even more problematic than ordinary majority decision, because with the latter the minority remains visible and can better form an opposition, where it can define its will even better and fight for in a public and recognized way.

Again it appears that decisions only make sense, where all or nearly all of the participants are affected by the decision (are in need of the decision). The necessity of making a decision should be always investigated beforehand: perhaps a consensus about the necessity of a consent must precede each case of consent seeking. This basic consensus can only be reached through free agreement. In other words, where voting – in which ever way – should be employed and where not, is a matter for an unanimously adopted constitution or charter of rules and conduct. Such agreements or constitutions or charters contribute to the conservation of structures. What is laid down, can only be altered with great difficulty, since it originated from a process, where each participant had the right of "veto". In that sense, the elites, having agreed upon a charter, paved the way for the only allowed future proceedings within the group. (structure of "attac". Attac’s procedure in the beginning led to a hierarchic power structure, reached through consent building and can no more be changed, unless all participants, with no "veto" coming up, want it.)

Author’s remark: So, an agreement on a constitution must allow for reversibility and flexibility, in order to maintain the anti-hierarchic character within an organisation. A right for veto concerning the change of constitution is undemocratic (except for a veto against investing more hierarchic structures)

Another drawback of proceedings to reach consent also by employing veto rights, is the mental pressure on the few or on the single person, who wishes to make use of the right for veto. And the right for veto can strengthen hierachy, e.g. if a single veto applied by the powerholders can be decisive to fulfill their will.

Author’s remark: What is argued against veto, is also valid for "criterion" or "qualified" majorities, like two-thirds or three-quarters majorities.

Speakers and Speakers Councils
They have privileges and thus are already components of hierarchy. If a congress, meeting, or assembly, is composed of several or many different homogeneous groups, the principle of delegating to prepare for decision finding and for overall organisation in a smaller group, cannot be avoided. If the ordinary members of individual groups must endorse each suggestion agreed upon by the council of speakers, then we can consider such suggestions or proposals to have been decided by all participants. But speakers and speakers councils could also be kept away from planning and from the preparing of proposals. In that case they may only "coordinate" and look after the smooth flow of asserted organisational procedures. Anyway, the ordinary grass root members must know, what they want, and how they want it to be executed. If they can influence processes at any time and without difficulty, we need not be afraid of boards and councils being too dominant.

If in a large hall, the autonomous groups forming clusters in an outer circle and the speakers forming a centrally located council (fish bowl principle), we have a device for traffic of the speakers between the speakers council and each group, so that the speakers can ask their group for feed back and for reaffirmation, when necessary.

Decisions via Lottery
On one hand, such a method cannot be called emancipated, since reason and argument do not count. On the other hand it disrupts hierarchic structures drastically. Alone the hint at the possibility of lottery deciding can lead to new efforts to find creative solutions. If we rely on this method, where no other way of decision finding is satisfactory, lottery may be the last resort and it brings about relief. It gears our anger and hatred not against opposing persons but against that kind of method, and that may be a good side effect in akward situations. Lottery decision is also a good idea, if alternatives are regarded as equally bad or desirable. Lottery guarantees equality of chances.

Plenum – Opium for the Basis
People associate with the word "plenum" the assumption of equal rights and transparency. But plenum does not cater for the reduction of dominance. The contrary. Plenum only suggests equality, but elites have an easier go and subject a larger number of members. The better the plenum has been prepared for, the better it is organized and moderated, the more it helps to foster hierarchy. Just consider the very few speakers confronting the large crowd of listeners. That alone shows the hierarchic character of the plenum. Many participants do not speak because they fell uncomfortable, when addressing such a large crowd. (lime light) Bad rhetorics harvest arrogant repulse. Single vetos harvest discrimination. Plenums mirror the real formal and informal hierarchy. The poorer, weaker, and more modest members are the losers. Plenum is a good institution for preserving dominance of elites. The elites define, which materials to be handed out, which agenda to propose, who is going to conduct and to moderate, what shall be discussed only and what should be decided upon. The elites subject subject themselves to the resolutiopns of the plenum only, where it does not hurt them. If they face the risk of losing power, they find reasons to ignore decisions and to do what they like after the plenum is over. Plena combine centralism with enforced collectivity. They strengthen uniformity, they convert complex issues into yes-no-questions. Consent kills autonomous variety and creativity.

Alternatives
Not every assembly of large numbers of persons should be called plenum. There are of course audiences of lectures and podium discussions and there are other theme oriented assemblies, which do not decide and do not have reason or interest to dominate. The exchange of information also functions decentralized. The use of infopoints and pinwalls saves time in the plenum for decision making. Plena are usually also too large for balanced discussion with a chance for everybody to take part. Small workshops are better for good discussions. The methods, ways of acting, and cooperation within and between small groups need not be regulated by plenums. Only very few themes require decisions of the plenum. In fact only those decisions by which the autonomy of other groups may suffer or has to be clipped.

End of Part 111

All kinds of binding decision making are hierarchic per se. They regulate delegation and representation and "competence" to act and reach out into (bourgeois ?) society. The administrations of the states insist on dealing with a special addressee, a leader, or authorized person. That makes elections a necessary institution. Elected persons are legitimated to e.g. dispose on resources, money, to speak to media, to negotiate and undergo treaties, represent the group in court, and so on.

Besides electing we can also vote on special issues (referenda)

Some provocations to reflect on:

• voting defines the "all" (everybody) of the group (who votes, abstains?) It is the manifestation of the "collective"
• voting gives forces of dominance better chances
• persons with experience in organizing are in a better position to gain with voting
• voting leads to legitimation of the dominant people

So: "Decision finding bottom up" tries to give up decision finding as much as possible. Especially fixations of general matters are not welcome. Decisions can only be valid for those who had agreed to make the decision via voting. And they know, that their voting is an act of installing hierarchy in some way or other. With the rest of the world outside the group, there can only be voluntary treaties and agreements.

But even for the internal structure of the group, one must keep in mind, that manipulation of voting is always possible. One must carefully watch the possibilities of manipulation, in order to prevent them as much as possible.

Points to watch:

• the simplification of complex issues, when preparing for yes – no –decisions is a draw back, which must be taken into account
• the way how the yes – no – alternative is verbalized, plays a crucial part
• debates geared to lead to voting also lead to black – white – thinking (either – or), which means they lead to narrow-mindedness
• voting's do not satisfy the desire for security if the results cannot be implemented by disciplinary measures
• veiled rhetoric's often suggest voting as being basis democratic, whilst on the opposite voting destroys autonomy and leads to hierarchy. This is even worse, when one attempts to reach "consensus", practically speaking "consent". (veto right serves the elites)
• skillful management of speaking time and turn, and the timing of closure of the speakers list
• exaggerated demands in order to reach a nice compromise
• moderation is always a tool to dominate. Though it can be used to overcome dominance, the moderator has enough power to abuse that tool.

Facet:
Reduction of hierarchy is not reached through special ways of decision finding by discussion and voting. Only autonomy and voluntary cooperation are free from hierarchy.

C 3. Supports for discussing and deciding bottom up
Notwithstanding the gloomy truth of the previous chapter, we cannot live and act without decisions. We must submit to their increasing the hierarchies and can only try to soften the trend.

"Flash Round"
Participants express, how and what they feel in the present situation. A flash round can be put up at any time, also during the course of decision finding. One after the other is asked to say, what he/she thinks and can make suggestions. The contributions should be very short and without reference to previous speakers. To speak is not obligatory. Flash rounds are a kind of mapping of feelings and opinions without leading to hierarchies or to polarisation. They promote consensus.

Speakers’ lists
Participants who wish to speak give a hand sign and the moderator writes down the names in chronolgical order. In large groups, those who wish to speak, can cue up near a mikrophone. Moderators can sort out the speakers, so that pro and contra arguments or male and female speakers alternate. Time limits can be given. But details and ruls may as well privilege the elites, a circumstance to be considered. And those lists will not help the shy and modest ones to come forward and to take part in the discussion.

Rotation
The rotating of persons with in office or with mandates hinders the establishment of formal hierarchies. Bur even better would be free agreements on offices and on mandates, when and where they become topical.

Moderation
As the word suggests, moderation moderates hierarchy. But at the same time it is an instrument of dominance. So, all depends on how to moderate. Moderators should not be involved in power struggle, but should be as much as possible impartial, free of bias, and should be able to withhold their sympathies or antipathies.

5 demands

• neutrality
• transparency (give reasons for your interferings)
• constructiveness (work for the group’s sake, not against)
• discipline (see that rules are adhered to)
• target orientation (see that a good closure (conclusion) of the debate is reached)

We must keep in mind, that moderation indeed cannot be neutral. It cannot hinder dominance completely. Rotation of moderation is recommended.

Rounds of Discussion
It can be agreed that every participant should utter his/her opinion (abstainment is of course possible)

Go-arounds
A specific question is to be answered by every participant.

Examples

1. How are you ? What are your feelings about … ? (Group, congress, voting, ..)
2. What are the news ? (gathering of information)
3. Is anything missing ? Anything to be settled ?
4. Final appreciation (opportunity to thank each other, reinforcement)

Feedback
Personal feedback should be given onlly where it is welcome. It should not analyse the other person’s character, but only deal with the specific feature you found disturbing or positive. Especially positive feedback should be given.

1. make your own notes (mind map)
2. write short summaries of your facet on a card. Cards are then published on a notice board and rubricated
3. each participant writes his/her idea (impression) on a flip chart. (brain storming)
4. protocol

Communication
Points for consideration and reflection:

• responsibility: each participant is responsible for the outcome
• time rule: the duration time of your contribution must be multiplied by the number of participants to see how much time is approriate, if everybody gets equal time.
• Admittance of subjectivity: Do not hide your personal statements behind: we, someone, people, others etc.
• Active listening: try to really understand, what the other participants say
• Cooperation: look for common ground, not for polarisation
• Adherence to theme

C 4. Fish Bowl
This is a kind of podium discussion, where the podium speakers can be recalled at any time by any participant, who then takes place on the podium. The arrangement of chairs is in concentric circles, arena like. Only the innermost circle form the podium and discuss. The others listen.

Further details can be obtained from http://coforum.de/index.php4?FischBecken

C 5, Conflict Solving

Mediator
He/she is an elected person to help, if two persons have severe problems with each other and cannot cooperate. It is then easier for a third person, respected by all, to find a new basis for communication. Mediation is based on voluntary agreement.

Supervision
The observation of a group by a person from outside helps to resolve ruptures or blockades in team work

C 6. Creativity
Creativity cannot develop freely in an hierarchic environment of supression. Vice versa opportunities for creative acting help to resist patterns of dominance.

Brainstorming
A good method is the free gathering of ideas, without discussing or evaluating them. Participants themselves visualize their ideas by writing or drawing on flip charts

Future orientated workshop
A more systematic and extensive method of brainstorming (duration at least a weekend or 3 days) 3 steps:

• Analysis of present situation
• Identification of problems to be addressed
• Development of projects for improving the situation

C 7. Reflection, Evaluation
Part of emancipation is also the self-reflection of what one has achieved. It serves the arriving at a new standpoint and enables us to depart anew with enough self-esteem (based on critically evaluated facts) to face "elites" on equal footing.

A check list with questions can help to include all relevant aspects. Answers can be written on cards, pinned on flip charts, and be presented to the audience. Coloured cards might be used to differentiate between good and bad experiences or special new perceptions.

• no hierarchies
• space free from discrimination
• autonomy for groups
• multiplicity, creativity
• emancipation in organizing
• against dominance, external determination, infiltration
• efficiency, flexibility
• free of oppression
• emancipatoric positioning

The final goal is a "free society", not by revolution, but by starting "here and now". In that sense: "Organisation Bottom Up". That means: cooperation and networks of autonomous groups with equal rights.

Characteristic: open personal spontaneous dialogues, transparency, not conspiration

Problems: chaos, unintelligibility, inefficience

Method: adhere strictly to emancipatoric aims (What do we really want ?) and to the increase of efficiency (what is required ?)

1.Persistency of old patterns
Discriminated groups (women, foreigners) tend to dominant behavior (loud voice, skilled rhetorics, humiliating of opponents, threatening gestures). This leads to passivity of a considerable part of members.

Top down solution
Regulations, introduction of quotas, bureaucracy

Bottom up solution
Permanent analysis of dominance and discrimination; creative antihierarchical forms of discussions and decision finding; transfer: exchange of experiences with other groups, publicity.

2. Powerlessness in the face of state and society, marginalisation and irrelevance of our political work
Most actions of NGOs have no chance to change conditions. They are of symbolic value only. Motivation decreases. Only antifascist actions have a potential for success.

Top down solution
Emphasis on importance of actions. Self-imposing pressure to act, which leads to exhaustion. High volatility of membership. Addiction to presence in media. Cutting down to "minimal reformism". Cooperation with parties, politicians, states officials, lobbyism. But all of that has no impact. Neither Greenpeace nor amnesty international changed anything substantially. Intellectualisation, "event-hopping", no sustainability, no emphasis on the building of new structures.

Bottom up solution
Try to start processes. Many actions are rewarding as process, even if they do not reach their goal. Develop new ways of acting, not just demonstrations with banners and stone throwing. Look for new kinds and ways of interventions. Encourage people to have visions and dreams, instead of being restricted to money, work and performance. Try teach-ins in streets, trains, or other places. Try to bring your message into schools, universities, business.

Top down solution
Lobbying, lowering of aims

Bottom up solution
Be radical; direct actions with creativity; (good strategy does not necessarily mean hierarchy)
Patience is not resignation. Great changes take time. (from Greenpeaceactions to ecological thinking). Value of mutual assistance (cooperative thinking is a gain)

4. Unwillingness to work continuously
The lack of pressure can lead to passivity. No success – no good feelings

Top down solution
If people need to be motivated extrinsically, let them have it. Give them offices, duties, posts, money.

Bottom up solution
Projectorientation leads to autonomy, selfreliance, responsibility and pride

5. Little time due to other commitments
Job, school, household, children, require time

Top down solution
Employ activists, give them money. The honorary activists get frustrated.

Bottom up solution
Self-organisation of life, part-time engagements; solidarity (private co-operatives for health and old age care

• no fantasy
• problems in the phase of realisation
• no vision, how future organisation and acting can differ from past and present

Top down solution
Seminars to foster creativity; hiring of creativity specialists;

Bottom up solution
Have contacts with the "alternative scene" and with artists; brainstorming, awards for good ideas; nonsense talk rounds; reflection of former positive actions; make yourself familiar with subversion and irritation being part of emancipation. Importance of courage: learn to address and to repel dominance and arrogance, where you are confronted with it.

7. Fear of Pluralism, Dynamics, and Dispute
Pluralism, dynamic, and dispute are welcome. They are essential ingredients of emancipation. Harmony and unity give us the feeling of security. Many disputes arise from power struggle and slander, and also from the aim to reach consensus. Pluralism and dynamics may be perceived as chaos. The fear is that matters get out of control.

Top down solution
Unity and harmony have priority. Emancipated dispute affords opponents on equal footing, which perhaps cannot take place "top down" at all. Offices and different status make equal positions impossible. So in this milieu, the learning process is slow and clumsy.

Bottom up solution
If people fear to lose power and control, we can tell them, that we want just that. Dispute is "cool". It need not evoke anger and hatred. Dispute serves clarification, not unification. It serves further development. Decentralisation is important. Dispute in open confrontation, not behind ones back.

8. active against Repression
Confrontation with e.g. police can lead to disability to act. There, is is essential, to estimate consequences and to mobilise help and solidarity and protection. Better actor than victim. A political group must at the same time be a social group. Even if transparency can not be maintained under all circumstances, the principles of transparency, of equal rights, and of direct social intervention must stay.

9. Fear of Isolation, fear of Initiative, fear of Accountability
If persons join groups in order to find a "Ersatzfamilie" (family substitute), they are not really emancipated.

Top down solution
Integration in a hierarchic system by distributing posts, offices, duties, and so on. Each one is somehow part of a clockwork. Parties (feasts), excursions, uniforms, flags, badges, etc produce a "WE-feeling".

Bottom up solution
We must agree, that the need for safety and security, for a protected harbour, is a legitimate one. Emancipation has its limits. Project orientation may be of help. Identification with a project produces self-assurance. Links and networks provide a feeling of safety.

10. Communication
Rhetorics lead to dominance. To veil subjective opinions by claiming, they are objective truths, is not good for communication. Monologues, interruptions o9f speech, sarcasm, loud voice, gestures, may also affect communication.

Top down solution
In many cases, the problems of communication are not even seen. To win the battle seems to be in the foreground. (About hierarchy and dominance in discussions please see the other chapters of this reader)

Bottom up solution
Observe, what could be the reason, that hinders an emancipated open communication. Communication is a social process and all participants are responsible for its success or failure. Direct intervention can help to bring communication on track again. Sensibility is asked for on both sides, the speaker’s and the listener’s. Pay attention and try to find out the necessaries of the others. However, your empathy should not lead to self-abnegation. Equanimity and calmness are good pace-makers for communication.

I am responsible for contents and style of this reader in my role as editor. I had to omit so many and large portions of the original source, that new reasoning and argumentation became necessary, in order to write a consistent text under the heading I choose. That does not mean however, that the original idea would be mine or that I concur with everything written in this text.

If you wish to find out, how a specific paragraph differs from the original, I am prepared to review my interpretation and to give explanations.

Franz Isemann, Kailbach, Bavaria, February, 17^th, 2004. mehr.demokratie@chiemgau-online.de