Process is Necessary but Not Sufficient: A Consideration of the Circle Pines Conference in Michigan, 18-20 Nov 94. --by Crafty Abstract The conference came from a need to grasp and solve problems which threaten the longevity and efficacy of various anarchist groups or projects, and was to be a way of making these problems visible and discussable. It met with mixed success. Group problems must be seen in larger scope than what the conference offered. Technique is Not Enough The conference focussed mostly on aspects of group activity that I call technical skills. These went under the general heading of "group process/dynamics/roles," and came out in practice as workshops on the use of consensus and on roles people might take in groups. These workshops were followed up in small discussion sections ("mini-collectives"). A severe, but subtle, shortcoming of the conference was its framing of group difficulties and survivability problems as matters of technique. Even in my discussion section, where the stated topics collapsed and gave way to self-selection, people remained within the orbit of technique and did not offer fundamentally different types of reasons for why groups fail. Causes other than "unhealthy group process" seemed so far from the scope of the conference that I did not care to make an issue of it. Dysfunctional group processes no doubt exist, and are usually conspicuous in the downfall of any group. But the story of how a group comes to eventual ruin is always both more involved and more particular than a simple reduction to the effect of "bad internal dynamics." That's just too easy to say. It excuses the ex-group from harder and more frightening questions of its motivating agenda and reason-for-being. My fundamental belief about group process is that people will self-organize and act to solve, or at least isolate, their internal problems if it's worth their while. This is a big If, bigger than any catalogue of roles and methods. Sound techniques for organizing and getting along in groups are of course indispensable. But they will not save a group that is doomed for basically existential reasons. Internal troubles are a group's executioner, not its judge. Identity Conflict is Not a "Process Issue" Also on the agenda was the topic of "isms." For purposes of the conference this was framed as identity-based conflicts which "foster an inability to follow process" and was thus allied with technical issues. But I think the identity question deserves more comprehensive treatment than just discussing its effect on "cohesion" and "established process." An "isms discussion," in my observation, is always hectic because its basic modes of conflict go unexamined. It's too easy (as usual) to call it a clash between "racism and equality", "sexism and equality", etc. Realistically, it's a multi-faceted struggle between different concepts of group organization and different motives for participating in a group in the first place, as well as the various forms of identity-based conflict (which I have no interest in referring to as isms). I can't say much concretely about this part of the conference since I backed out after fifteen minutes, thinking I knew where its trajectory would take it. Just to summarize my stance, I am becoming less and less sympathetic to the "breaking down barriers" view, in which group identities are real but manufactured by an oppressor class to keep people divided. I see identities as more self-existent than that. I'm inclined to take the barriers (ie differences) for granted, and work more towards alliance between discrete independent factions instead of unification into "the collective." Conclusion The most positive end effect of this conference would be: People realize that group process is an important but at best partial influence on making or breaking a group. They prioritize clarity of their groups' goals and reason-to-be over any particular doctrine of process, and thereby retain the flexibility to choose processes that best serve their goals. The worst thing would be this: People accept the discussion of process as somehow definitive of why groups fail, and suffer a double blow if their own group collapses despite having learned sound technical skills. I anticipate the result will fall somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. My intent is to deflect it as far as possible to the better end, and I hope to develop this thought more extensively in a future piece which will be less specific to the conference itself. Having been to a small handful of gatherings, I'm more or less reconciled that informal networking is the main value of the events. I'll probably continue to go for that reason, if nothing else. And for lessons in vegan cooking. 28 Nov 94