On “onboarding” and “inclusive spaces.” The Rantomatic-3000 grinds through the gears…

Deny the passengers, who want to get on.

That’s a reference to a fun (ymmv) Elton John song from a few years back (40, to be precise).

All will be revealed soon, fwiw.

This post comes from a prompt, nudge, suggestion from someone. In response to an old Conversation article under the title “We’ve got to stop meeting like this”, they wrote.

You’re strong on being welcoming to newcomers but could develop the ‘onboarding’ i think – ideally you don’t just want folk coming back, but immediately brought into productive channels

You did talk about it to be fair, but Bond & Exley have a whole chapter on it iirc

There’s probably more you could say about 

– ensuring spaces are inclusive

– importance of good facilitation to get single-issue guy off the mic and actively seek out the quieter voices

So I said this

Challenge (well, nudge!) accepted. Will write on these, or cannibalise stuff I’ve already done.

Warning though – “onboarding” is going to be accompanied by stuff about Jung, shadows, free-riding and so on. 

See tonight’s post about Marc’s Andon Board for more info.

And here we are. Follow this footnote  (1) if you want to know my deeper motivations (but life is short, it’s waaaay later than you think, so choose how you spaff your hours against the wall wisely).

First thing, is the whole language of “onboarding” is the apotheosis/nadir of corporate shitfuckery and should be burned to the ground, the ashes collected, burned some more and then shot off to Mars so Elon Musk can eat those cold dead ashes when he gets there, any year now.

There’s a big old difference between taking tools – like Andon Boards, to choose an example at random – with caution and forethought as possible ways to fight back against the accelerating suicide, and … allowing linguistic colonisation of the lifeworld.  

Aand breathe.

What do we mean by “onboarding?”

I guess we mean somebody has heard about our group (from friends, from a positive experience at a public meeting, a tweet, a viral video whatever) and  decided they want to “give it a go” and now have turned up for an “orientation” or “induction” (and see above for my equivocations about those words).

Because, as soon as the person says they want to be involved, that’s all that’s needed. You give them some information, they make a rational choice, they become a valued and reliable member of the group. Others join, rinse and repeat. The group grows and everyone lives happily ever after.

Ha. Ha ha. (continue in this vein/vain for several minutes).

We need to talk about Carl.

The Jung and the Restless

Carl Jung was an early proponent of Sigmund Freud’s theories of just how messed up the human brain is. They split over sex, but that’s not important. What is important here is Jung’s concept of the Shadow. It’s way later than both think, so let’s go with the short version.

Actually, it’s probably a good idea to read footnote (2).

How does this apply?

The language of “onboarding” has a nice smooth ‘rational’ tang to it. All will be well because none of us has contradictions, weaknesses, hidden motives (hidden to US as well).  

With the information deficit model, well, there’s a lack of information, you supply, people are happy, the world is better and on the way to being saved.

“Onboarding” basically is an idea borne of “opportunity deficit model.”  There are people looking for opportunities to ‘be involved’. You supply, people are happy, the world….

“Onboarding” is the term we use because words like ‘recruit’ are poison(ed).  People are ‘recruited’ to churches, cults, extremist groups.  No, no, ‘onboarding’.

So, here’s some things from our ids and our shadows that we may not want to admit, but which MATTER when we talk about onboarding.

• People want things at the cheapest price possible. Not just people, organisms.  An organism that wastes more energy getting its resources than it needs to is out-competed by more ‘efficient’ ones. Short-cuts are the only long-term path.
• So leaders want the adulation/the power etc without providing leadership and care to their followers.   Leaders want obedient acolytes (and before you think ‘only in the corporate world, not in sweet ethical activism – you think it’s just the Post Office that selects for dysfunctional dickheads? Srsly?
• And “followers” want the benefits of membership (material, emotional, whatever) without paying their dues.

Most so-called would-be activists who come to ‘onboarding’ sessions  are TOURISTS. They are looking to get solutions to their social and emotional problems via “membership” of a group.  They are looking to see if they can get their activist credibility tokens at lowest cost. If another group is offering the same tokens (more or less) for less effort –  going to a march/rally with a clever banner, or tweeting up a storm or whatever, that is what will happen.

There is such a thing as Gresham’s Law of Activism – crap  activism drives out good.  See also (3).

To come back to Elton, at last. There are passengers (or parasites). They want to get on. Do what Elton tells you. Deny the passengers, who want to get on.

Right. Inclusive spaces. 

Why?  Why does every space have to make room for people who are just looking to get their needs (for attention, approval, whatever) met? When did we have a vote on that? Why wasn’t I invited?

How much time and space is spent negotiating around the whims and sense of entitlement of given individuals?

Is this actually about those who’ve opened the spaces feeling too scared of conflict to defend the space, so creating this idiotic excuse that any restriction on behaviour etc is a betrayal of the “prefigurative politics we are trying to embody”.  

Yes.  Sometimes, at least, it is.

Those who set up the space (a group, a meeting) lack the skills, self-confidence, energy or whatever (combinations of things, usually) to make sure shit doesn’t go south.  They quite like being known as the ‘entrepreneur/al-lround good guy who Makes Things Happen.

They think they earn it via the drudgery involved, but if they are not doing the hardest bits, well, they’re just offloading their responsibility and taking undue credit with their emptier hands.  (4)

Because unpoliced  “inclusive” spaces are prone to so many pathologies. One obvious one is  sealioning.

There are ways to create/maintain inclusive spaces

1. Clear brief written ‘codes of conduct’ that are flagged at the beginning of every meeting. If someone turns up late, it can be pointed out that they are still held to those codes and if they don’t like it, tough
2. Decent facilitation, and if it is likely to be contentious, a facilitator who not only has no skin in the game, but is seen by others.  Not enough facilitators with experience? Whose fault is that, over time?  Why, it is yours.
3. One-to-one meetings (they can bring a friend, obvs) with people who are both consistently AND unconstructively “disruptive” (as distinct from transruptive)..  Explanations of consequences they are causing and may face.  Following through on that so it isn’t an empty and laughed-at process
4. Reflection on how inclusive spaces can degenerate into Stalinist sing-kumbaye-cult-spaces where everyone is more interested in getting along than getting anything done.  Is the inclusive space there to a) attract donors b) maintain morale c) maintain the leader’s prestige?  Is it a USEFUL part of a wider ecosystem that generates sustained and sustainable levels of actual, you know, ACTION?

All of this is simpler to type than to do. None of this is easy.  

I want to thank the person who prompted this.  I don’t know if I’ve said anything a) that I didn’t say before b) useful. But it’s been fun and gratifying for me, and that – after all – is the main thing.

To recap

If we talk about onboarding without talking about the shadow, well, it’s the equivalent of “information deficit model” campaigning, isn’t it? It. Doesn’t. Work.

Ditto the fetish of ‘inclusive spaces’ It. Doesn’t. Work.

Then again, nothing works. Everything falls apart. It’s all Cher and the Incentive Structures. 

It’s turtles – dissipative and dissipated –  all the way down.

Marc’s further work: 

Shadow and/or id. Which is it?  Started here (5)

Footnote

1.  I am writing this  because  

• I want to feel “useful” (less useless) (yes, ego gratification. So sue me. Read some freaking Nietzsche, ‘kay?)
• I want to see if I say anything new (though tbf I have forgotten most of what I did say/did) about this stuff over the years (well, decades), based on participation in various social movement organisations (esp but not limited to Camp for Climate Action, 2006-7 and Climate Emergency Manchester 2019-2021) and far too much time spent alongside and thinking about/watching/trying and failing to support so many other groups. I blogged a lot about it, thought about it, wrote about it (not always in that order). Those are my bona fides, such as they are. Whatever.

2. It may well be (is) that I am confusing/conflating Jung’s shadow with Siggie’s id.  I couldn’t pass a “distinguish the two” test, and I fear I may just be reaching beyond my grasp for new (to me) shiny concept.  Be advised.
3. THis is NOT an argument for vanguardism, Stalinism, Bob Michels. That won’t work either. It’s a plea to be honest, brave etc about all this shit.
4. No, nobody’s ever called me a gratuitously cynical poseur who thinks because he read some Nietzsche thirty plus years ago he knows what he is talking about.  Why do you ask?
5. Jesamine Mello Jungian Analyst, IAAP/AGAP, Graduate Analyst @ ISAPZurichAuthor has 416 answers and 6.7M answer views1y

There is a big difference between Freud’s id and Jung’s idea of shadow. In essence, id is biology and the shadow is biography. I’ll give you a simple description of the differences.

Freud’s concept of “id” is based in what he called “das Es,” which means “the It” in German. Id was a Latinized word used by his translators. The “it/id” therefore is de-humanized, without any capacity for relatedness. Loosely speaking, the id was Freud’s conception of the unconscious psyche, driven only by our animalistic urges and instincts. The id is pre-ego, whereas the shadow is really a part of our ego. In Jungian psychology, the shadow is the unconscious side of our personality, the backside of the ego. That backside consists of both light and dark aspects. The shadow is a personification of everything we have rejected, denied, suppressed, repressed, or, something about ourselves we have not yet realized.

See also

Will you marram me? Of “grassroots” and the need for commitment mechanisms.