So, went to an activist meeting that was dominated by a small core of people. Afterwards they were heard agreeing that it was an excellent meeting. And you have to wonder, what were their criteria. I think these.
- “I got to speak a lot/display my virtue and or intelligence/be the centre of attention”
(see also ego potlatch)
- “Issues that were uncomfortable were not aired”
- “There were agreed doable outcomes that the ‘group’ can do that will lead to benefits for the group and me.”
Other criteria, which would be regarded as irrelevant or hippy nonsense by those who found the meeting ‘a success’ but might actually make the whole damn thing sustainable.
- Everyone present was given enough information and opportunities to ‘warm up’ so that they could both more easily absorb what was being said at (sorry, ‘to’ ) them and also participate in the conversation afterwards
- The initial promises of interactivity and time-keeping were kept
- People were not just encouraged to participate but the meeting was consciously structured in ways that lowered/eliminated the invisible barriers that are in place due to status, information differentials etc
- The meeting was not dominated by a small core of high-status individuals who have the confidence/cultural and social capital to interact with each other over the heads of a silent observing group of people treated as ‘ego-fodder’
(e.g. in a group of 14 people, 5 people did all the speaking [bar one invited speaker and one self-serving ‘question’] for the first 105 minutes of a 120 minute meeting. By the end of the 120 minutes, only 9 of the 14 people had said anything (and 3 of them had spoken only once).
The obvious retort is that by trying to abolish hierarchy you are pissing in the wind, futilely defying millions of years of evolution.
The retort to the retort is that no, we’re not trying to abolish it, just lessen its impact, and that by that argument, nobody ever managed to knock the rough edges of absolute dictatorship etc etc. How come slavery was abolished, men can no longer ‘legally’ rape their wives etc etc.