Due Process

Neighborhood Post

Due Process

So, in order to try to be more involved as a neighbor in my community, I joined the "Process Team", which is a small group of people who, among other things, take on the work of facilitating good communication process between individual members of Twin Oaks and within the community as a whole. Members of the process team do things like facilitate the infrequent community meetings as well as conflict resolution meetings between two or more willing members of the community. We also are involved with coming up with and putting out surveys and questionnaires to members of the community. In general I got a sense that there was  some precarious balance being struck between improving community process and facilitating and helping to inform the community about whatever processes happen to currently exist either officially or as norms. I was much more conscious of and excited about the former part of the job than the latter.  It seemed to me that the immediate problem was more the lack of participation in any kind of intentional face to face communication process at all then the nature and quality of any of the established processes themselves (In retrospect I find it hard to say why I should have had this point of view). 

At any rate, when I joined the process team, didn't have the community "feedback process", much less the process team's required participation in it in mind. The feedback is a kind of one-sided forced inquisition that "a problem person" (by which i mean a person one or more other community members think of that way) has to go through. The person is usually someone suspected of violating some "community agreement or norm"  (I put this term in quotes both because the "community" doesn't seem to me to really agree about much at all and because the process by which such agreement might be facilitated and renewed--regular general meetings for example--is passively resisted by those whose positions of relative comfort might be jeopardized by changes in the status quo.) The feedback is not supposed to be punitive in intent but, so far as I can tell, it is certainly experienced that way by the those who are forced (at least people certainly feel forced and there can certainly be both formal and informal sanctions if one refuses) to go through it. Moreover there is often some kind of "contract" that the "focus person" is obliged to sign which is designed to please "the prosecution".

Anyway, it occurred to me, after being on the team for awhile, to suggest that we review this whole feedback process, which always seemed to me to be essentially unfair, and see if we could agree among ourselves about just what was wrong with it and what could possibly replace it, and then post our findings to the community as a joint process team evaluation and recommendation. Maybe there would be enough interest for us to have a well attended community meeting about it followed by the formal adoption of something better. What follows is the result of my own closer inspection and evaluation of the Feedback policy, which, for reasons contained in the text, I posted to my community as an Individual-Person rather than as a member of the process team. 

Feedbacks and Due Process at Twin Oaks
posted by I-P for Healthy Culture

 One

The punitive aspect of the feedback is in its one-sidedness. since displeasing others (even many others) is not the same as being wrong and since the displeasure (as well as any wrongness) may be just as strong or stronger in the other direction, it is hard, in any disagreement or problem, to see the fairness of putting one of the two parties in a one-sidedly defensive  and passive situation, effectively giving the other party the right to question, judge and complain (or even just the right to chose or limit the topic of discussion) without itself being vulnerable to the same treatment.

Moreover, If special punishment is not attached to being put in such a situation then that is even more reason why the feed back should not be unilateral  and why the issue in question should not be limited to  that chosen by only one party; if its a healthy, non-punitive process, then why limit it only to the "focus person"? There is no a priori reason why either a given individual or any group of individuals should be expected to be less open to correction, change, and growth--and the feedback that can lead to this--then any another individual or group, whatever the relative numbers are between the two parties. Putting any minority through an unpleasant process that the majority is not willing to go through is equivalent to punishing the minority for being a minority and correspondingly privileging the majority just for being a majority. Since more is not necessarily better, any more than might is right, it is difficult to justify the asymmetry of the normal feedback proceedings no matter what the relative numbers are. (I want to be clear here that I am not saying the majority is necessarily wrong any more than that its necessarily right, I'm saying that there is nothing about being a majority that justifies exemption or special privileges in its process with a minority.)

Nor is it clear that, even when numbers are equal, person or group A should be privileged or exempted from inquiry, just because they are more aggressive, proactive (or, it could be, just more intolerant or mean-spirited) than person or group B and so happen to be the ones initiating the proceedings. In other words, there is no reason why a disagreement should have recourse to being escalated in a way where one of the disputants is given the advantage of being exempt from  questioning, culpability, correction etc..while the other is not. Not only does it prejudice the out come of the dispute and likely obscure the real nature and causes of the situation, but it provides an antisocial incentive for escalating any such disagreement with out any attempt at balanced inquiry, mature discussion or mutual understanding and accommodation.    

Returning to the Majority vs Minority situation, there are countless historical situations of majorities oppressing minorities through legally subjecting minorities (gays, women,witches, people of color, indigenous peoples,poor people, or just unpopular individuals) to one-sided processes just because they can (this is not to mention the analogous situations, of pogroms, mob rule, gag rape, mugging or any other movement of a self-righteous majority against a minority or weaker group or individual without a symmetrical due process). Of course the majority always thinks and feels that it is right in such situations.  Often enough the minority also thinks and feels that its right (or at least no more wrong then the majority, even if it might be too cowed and intimidated to say so). Whatever the relative numbers may be, such a situation is morally symmetrical, and it is our collective response in  just in such situations (were a majority is against and minority or individual) that reveal whether our institution really has anything at all to do with fairness, equality, or cooperation (much less kindness or{here insert some other relevant community bylaw or value, or just human value}), or whether we are, when it comes down to it, no  better than a mob self-complacent bullies and  cowards.

What seems to follow from this is that, a case of "the community or some subset thereof against X" , the possibility is just as much that "X" is "right" as that "the community" (etc...) is "right". Since, as in most relationships, it takes two to tango, both the community (or some subset) and "X" are equally likely to be guilty of some failure to live up to the spirit of our values and agreements. The proceedings of a feedback (if it would still be called that) should reflect this likely mutual and general responsibility not only in the form of the investigation or inquiry but in the form of its possible outcomes.

So far as proceedings go, any process between X and the community or some official or unofficial subset thereof, should be conducted in a bilateral and multilateral way in which the "focus person" or their behavior is not presumed at the outset to be the only, or even the main, problem or problem cause.  In such a process the focus person, the dissatisfied instigators of the feedback, as well the relevant extant community rules, norms or states of affairs, will be equally subject to potential questioning and criticism in terms of their respective failure to live up to our values and agreements. So far as outcomes go, it follows from the above that any resultant contract between the community and X  be possibly bilateral, outlining concrete steps the community (or some formal or informal part of it) should be willing to take to live up to our stated values AS WELL AS what person or group X is also expected to do in this regard. The likely result of such a process, if the details are handled well, is the improvement, growth and maturity, of both the individual and the community as a whole, in contrast to the  present feedback process which seems incapable of strengthening anything but resentment on one side and lame complacency on the other.  

 Though the word "Feedback" is not inherently inappropriate for such a radically improved process, it would probably avoid confusion just to call it something else (a "community hearing" or something) and abandon feed-backs in there current form forever.




Two

I wrote the first part of the above as part of a process team project arguing for a revision of the rules of the Feedback (or perhaps for its possible replacement with something else), on the basis that it violates, among other things the bylaw preference for constructive rather than punitive ways of dealing with problems and individuals. It was the first piece of work that I felt was actually good enough for me to take process team labor credits for.  I suggested the project myself, (purely coincidentally),  a week before the current feedback situation existed. Having become so clear about the the inherent unfairness of the Feedback in the process of writing the above I cannot, in good conscience actively facilitate it simply because, as a member of the process team, it is "my job" to do so. In the words of Cool Hand Luke and in the spirit (if not the results) of the Nuremberg trials; "callin' it 'you're job' don't make it right, boss...". 

I therefor have decided to make this paper also serve as public announcement of my resignation from the process team. Effective Wednesday October 8 2008. I have myself considered the pros and cons of staying on the team and trying to mitigate the inherent unfairness of the feedback process (among other such unfair or coercive processes) from within and I very much respect the decision (of any current members of the  process team who might agree with me about some or all such issues), to choose such a path. For my part, I cannot square such a non-mandatory compromise, with the development of my own character.  Without some reason to expect likely growth and maturity of the community and its processes as a result of my participation in such a compromise, I think I could be more effective in furthering both my own and its growth as a relatively free agent.  I very much enjoyed being on the process team for the short while I was on it and very much wish the best for Tikvah, Ethan, and Purl and anyone else who might join it with good intentions.

Sincerely,

I-P

Postscript

I want to say something about the interpretation of the bylaws in general here. I want to emphasize the distinction between positive values and necessary evils and point up the implications of such distinctions. The bylaws are clear that not only furthering equality and cooperation but actively diminishing competition are among its positive values. Since capitalism  in its most typical form is all about competition, hierarchies and coercion, it would seem to follow that those provisions and  arrangements  in the bylaws which were clearly meant to facilitate our (successful enough) participation in such competition would constitute necessary evils rather than positive values. One implication of this seems to me to be that whenever opportunity allows, structural or otherwise attempts should be made to progress towards that which is a positive value and diminish that which is a necessary evil. Managerial hierarchies, the  reduction of  individuals to quantitative abstractions, (whether of money or labor hours) are all clearly aspects of twin oaks culture that mimic corporate capitalist culture and thus constitute necessary evils (at best) rather than positive values. As such, active and ongoing experiments in mitigating or eliminating such necessary evils (even when this would involve some ¨lowering" of our ¨standard of living¨) is a reasonable expectation of anyone living here, whereas the reflexive and unquestioning defense of such evils is not.

end of post.

Well, so much for my brief experiment with being on the Process Team as a way of being more formally involved with my Neighborhood in a healthy way. For the time being I feel pretty confirmed in my feeling that working within a "system" that is itself not healthy is something of a last resort to be chose only when there seems to be no way to effect the system for the better otherwise. Actually I mean something like "moving deeper into the system" rather then "working within the system" because, of course I am still "working in the unhealthy system, both of twin oaks and of the world beyond it. The point is that the balance of working to heal the system and becoming a willing and unconscious part of it is likely to tip strongly toward the latter the more one concedes more than the minimum participation necessary to stay alive to effect healing at all. What I want to get practice in is participating in rituals of togetherness not rituals of apartness like the feed back, and  staying on the process team and going through with the feedback would just have amounted to my learning (in some sense voluntarily is time) one more ritual of inner and outer alienation. It would have been a  disservice to myself and the community even if i could have slightly mitigated its effect by some action of mine. Such an act of mitigation might even have served to help legitimate and disguise the essential nature of a process that is inherently unfair.

3 people signed my post indicating willingness to get together to talk about it and its implications (one of the people was the "focus person" of the most current feedback) and as yet I have not made any gesture to get this to happen. I am not sure what is keeping me from doing so. Maybe this post will have the effect of a reminder and challenge for me either to do so or get clearer as to why I am not...

Welcome and Thanks.

I-P

Post Script

I share the gist of the above post in a dicussion group about intentional community at gaia.com (I had retitled it "Community Due Process; dealing with "problem people"). What follows is the responce I got and my reply.

Re: Community Due Process: dealing with "problem people", Iuval said:

"IP, perhaps we are all “problem people”, although some may be more problematic than others (like some of the animals who were more equal than others in Animal Farm :-)) Can we find a process that is more symmetrical and less punitive? I think Oneida already did it, and other possibilities abound. Their process was called “mutual criticism”, and it wasn't totally symmetrical because their “leader” was exempt. They had it regularly, whether there was a problem or not. Some communists had “self-criticisms” but I think they eventually evolved into charades. I actually like the idea of a self-criticism as long as everyone has to do it and does it in a spirit of humility and being able to laugh at themselves. I think the Bruderhof also have something similar to a feedback, but I don't remember if it is symmetrical or not. IMO, anything that prevents egos from getting too big is a good thing. I personally have no problems with hierarchies based on wisdom and experience and competence as long as they are not rigid hierarchies and there are checks and balances to prevent egos from getting too big."

"I hope we can develop systems that can deal with problem people (that is, all of us)  while acknowledging that the responsibility for the problem is systemic, not fully personal. I was  dealing with two problem people at the last IC I was at: myself (a provisional member) and  the full member , D,  who felt like I was the only problem person (as well as the previous members who left feeling like she was the problem person). At the end, D gave me a membership review/feedback where she asked me to leave based on what her assessement of my problem was (unless I was willing to make a correction in my attitude, which I was not able nor willing to make), and I was not really allowed to respond. I chose to leave until the system changes."
-Iuval

Re: Community Due Process: dealing with "problem people", I-P said:

Hi, Iuval,

Thanks for reading and responding to my rather long post. I definitely agree that  we are all “problem people” in one way or another, which is why I put the phrase in quotes in my title. I also like the idea of “mutual criticism” though I think it should extend to the community bylaws, and status quo as a whole and not just all of the individuals within it. I think that that was one of the things that was wrong with the “self-criticism” experiments. A healthy culture can, not only stand, but respond to, criticisms of itself and moreover actually encourages them, though again not unilaterally.

I suppose that I can agree with hierarchies that I would describe as situational, consensual and temporary, though I think to call such things “hierarchies” would probably be rather misleading (through the phrase "dynamic integral heterarchy"might describe it). For example, If, in a storm at sea, everybody has consensus to do as the captain says (not because he or she is “the captain” but because they spontaneously acknowledge that he or she is manifesting  “experience and wisdom” under the circumstances) then I would say that what is really happening is consensual rather than coercive, even if it would look different from outside. But for me the living and free quality of the consensus on the matter is the point. It could be the case after all that the captain is drunk, that the captain is–even temporarily– succumbing to his or her own sick culture in ways that relate to but  transcend the practical nature of the task at hand (for example—and such things have happened in the past-- the captain could succumb to valuing gold more than people and in an effort to lighten the load of the ship declare that certain persons be thrown overboard rather than the gold…)etc…

my point is not only that people exist (and have experience and wisdom) primarily as people (I would say as “individual-persons”) rather then as “officers” or job titles, and that their competence at anything else needs to be evaluated from that shared ground, but that even the  shared ground is  just as unstable as the deck of a ship in a storm, in that a person who is “well Balanced” as an individual-person and using the best of his or her experience at one moment might lose that balance in the next moment. Given the inherently dynamic nature of such things, I think it much better that an overt and formal egalitarianism generaly prevail over a rigid  specialization as the norm and that the latter (even when it is not rigid),  be subordinant to the former.

In such a situation of assumed primary equality and primary non-specialization as I am advocating, no one is obliged to turn off or repress their critical, creative, and moral  faculties in deference to some  pre-established hierarchy (though they themselves might decide to do so in response to the actual details of some real and usually temporary situation). In such a situation no one is in danger of being corrupted either by “power ” on the one side or by servitude on the other, and bilateral habits of universal respect (rather than dangerous and usually unnecessary unilateral and mechanical habits of command and obedience) are formed all around.

Anyway, so far as your experience goes, I can only say that it seems fairly typical. I think that the intentional community movement in general has yet to realize in practice that  collective “might” is not any more “right” than Individual “might” and that if a so-called  intentional community is going to amount to much more than a mob with a land base, those within it must learn to understand “rights” in terms of responsibilities–not only direct responsibilities to the land and to their own growth as persons, but to the creation of the kind of minimally  coercive and essentially healthy culture  which I think is alone compatible with the long term health of the Land Base and of all its occupants.

 After all, if “Might is Right” ,  then rapists have the right to rape, child molesters have the right to molest etc…And this implication extends  equally to  the “right” to private ownership of land (which is ultimately acquired and maintained by “might”). And this is so whether the “right” and “might” is individually or collectively held. Moreover, since ANY in-group with the power or numbers (the “might”) behind them  can usually be relied on to convince THEMSELVES (usually with a little more of a farce of deliberation then the average mob),  of their “Righteousness” in excluding or coercing others, the only check against the resurgence in so called intentional community of the de facto vileness and pathology of the historical and contemporary state of affairs is, so far is I can see, some culture of coercion/ alienation/hierarchy-minimizing due-process, such as I outlined in the second half of my my post.

 The due-process I describe and advocate would of course be only one aspect of the healthy culture in which it could credibly exist and thrive. But it makes more sense to direct folks to my profile and blog if they are curious about my own ideas of what such a culture might be like in general.

Thanks again for your response Iuval! Hope we have occasion to dialog more,

I-P