Help me expand this list so I can research it So, I was unpleasantly surprised in a FB thread yesterday to find both some logic and strong hostility to consensus and towards those who advocate for it in a radical left union. Consensus in the article connected it to Quaker process. So I am doing research. Later I will explore other dimensions, but for now I want to collect all the reasons why this might be so. Here is my preliminary list gathered from a couple of conversations plus one from David Graebers book on Democracy. Please add reasons you find true or have come across. I want as complete a list as possible. Reasons for hostility to consensus: 1. It’s hard 2. It does not work (especially with large numbers of people) 3. It elitist 3. It is a religious and not a union process, i.e., it only works well with persons who have the same or similar religious beliefs. 5. Quakers are smug and don’t share process well 6. Quakers are too bourgeois 7. The Unity process does not translate well to secular consensus or instrumental (vs. expressive, e.g., church) types of contexts 8. It does not work in the context of a radical left union because of particular issues like having undercover FBI insurgents block action. 9. The process has not changed to meet the changing context
Posted on: Tue, 04 Nov 2014 11:47:48 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015