The Machiavellian Circus: How Well-Meaning Collectives Degenerate Into Power Struggles and Purges

by The Common Wheel Collective

The Common Wheel Collective has been working on a book on collective process, focusing on the often unrecognized abuses and negative group dynamics that occur when people try to work collectively. Our objective is to help collectives achieve true egalitarianism. This book is a work in progress, and everybody is invited to contribute. It can be viewed on the Web at: http://geocities.com/collectivebook/.

I. Laying the Groundwork

At least in theory, egalitarian groups are based on principles of mutual respect, acceptance, and maximal freedom.  Thus, it might seem unlikely, at first, that such groups could be consumed by petty maliciousness, name-calling, and nasty infighting. Yet, this phenomenon happens remarkably often, and with an alarming speed. However, once you become acquainted with a few of these internal struggles, it becomes clear that the descent is rarely mysterious or surprising; instead, it follows some very typical patterns. For example, we might focus on the following very common sequence of events:

An all-around annoyance with a given person or situation has reached critical mass, probably after a lot of grumbling and gossiping out of the supposed culprit's earshot, and everybody is now steamed. In fact, the group is more than ready to take supposedly effective action against the supposed culprit. Soon enough, either the poor accused sap will flee, unable to tolerate the abuse that has ensued, or a ban will be called for, and it will probably succeed. If the ban does not succeed, the outcome can be even messier: two factions will form, one in support of the ban and the other against it. Unless one side is strong enough to crush the other, the collective will break apart. In either of these scenarios, the outcome is regrettable. At best, a human being has been vilified and humiliated. At worst, the group will have dissolved, amidst rancor, hurt feelings, and recriminations.

In the midst of such a conflict, one or both sides might start slinging accusations fast and loose. Often, there will be a lot of manipulation and backroom scheming, in order that one side might gain advantage over the other. A hapless person who wouldn't think of devising strategies or masterminding plots may suddenly find that she is universally hated, perhaps without even knowing why. Sometimes secret meetings are held, without the knowledge of the accused, at which the attendees hatch a plan to ostracize her. Usually, this is done simply because the complainants are too cowardly to confront the person and ask her directly to alter her demeanor.

This unfortunate pattern can have irreparably painful and discouraging consequences for the accused or ostracized individual, dampening or eliminating a once enthusiastic desire to be involved in activism. In fact, the most disillusioned activists whom we have encountered did not become disillusioned for the typically cited reasons of state oppression, loss of basic ideals, or an increase in "adult" responsibility. Mostly, these activists got discouraged by the things that they saw and experienced within their own activist groups. The issues that their experiences bring up obviously extend far beyond personal injury suffered by isolated, "difficult" individuals.  These problems actually raise fundamental questions about whether egalitarian collectives can be sustainable. Even when a collective survives such conflicts and ugliness, we're left wondering whether it survived with it principles and integrity intact.

Return to Authority

Such problems may be less surprising if we consider that the culture that we come from is based on hierarchies of perceived experience and power. Whether we are conscious of it or not, many of us have internalized these expectations. People in the activist community are often very committed to anti-authoritarianism, at least in the broader, ideological sense. Unfortunately, they tend to have problems applying this ideology at a more basic level, in their own groups. When actual difficulties arise within our own circles, many people want to find a quick exit route, some strategy for easily and decisively dealing with intractable or impossible people and situations. In these situations, it may begin to seem that real egalitarianism simply won't work.

When it's time to "play hardball" -- for instance, when the group finds that someone is being intolerably disruptive -- it may begin to seem that tolerant and thoughtful methods simply aren't going to yield results. As soon as the collective trust fails, many people fall back into good, old authoritarianism. And when that starts to happen, the swing of the pendulum can be extreme. All of a sudden, a community based on reaching out to one another in solidarity can become a circus of Machiavellian maneuverings or outright collective viciousness.

If the leaders are strong enough and have the unwavering support of the group, the organization will not collapse under the strain of the conflict but will continue as before. Of course, such a group cannot be called egalitarian or anti-authoritarian. Many times there will be resentments and discontent grumbling just below the surface, but these may not erupt; the disillusioned will simply leave quietly. The activist scene may be made less vibrant and effective by their absence, but in all likelihood no one will notice.

Freedom to Dissociate

Very often, a group that does not trust consensus and egalitarianism reserves for itself an authoritarian clause to swiftly deal with situations that are difficult or sticky. This usually involves reserving the right to exclude difficult people from the group or suppress disruptive behaviors.

This practice is usually defended as being consistent with a fundamental tenet of anarchist thought: the freedom to associate with whomever one pleases, which implies, many say, the corollary freedom to dissociate with whomever one pleases. For example (and this is just one of many similar disclaimers claimed by various anarchist groups):

[T]he list members do have the right to boot people who are being purposefully disruptive on a case by case basis. This is not censorship but the anarchist principle of voluntary association. If the majority of the people on the list decide that they do not wish to associate with somebody, then they are entitled to take appropriate action to do so.

Boston Anarchists (listserve guidelines)

However, a perusal of classic anarchist texts does not yield this fundamental tenet. The closest we have been able to find is a passing mention in Malatesta's pamphlet, "A Talk about Anarchist-Communism," which is an informal conversation between two workers about anarchism:

[F]or if it is unjust that the majority should oppress the minority, the contrary would be quite as unjust; and if the minority has a right to rebel, the majority has a right to defend itself... it is true that this solution is not completely satisfactory. The individuals put out of the association would be deprived of many social advantages, which an isolated person or group must do without, because they can only be procured by the cooperation of a great number of human beings. But what would you have? These malcontents cannot fairly demand that the wishes of many others should be sacrificed for their sakes.

 A Talk about Anarchist-Communism by Errico Malatesta

This is not a ringing endorsement of a fundamental guiding principle. Malatesta himself admits that "this solution is not completely satisfactory."  And because it's a comment offered in passing, there is no mention of how the group would determine whether or not a particular dissenter should be labeled a malcontent.

Precedents for Banning

Bakunin writes about the freedom not to associate, but he is referring primarily to a community's freedom not to become involved with groups that are not anarchist or do not abide by anarchist principles. He never mentions this as a reason to remove an individual from a community. He does say that those who do not contribute to the group with their labor can be expelled, but that statement is rarely invoked by anarchist collectives:

Society cannot, however, leave itself completely defenseless against vicious and parasitic individuals. Work must be the basis of all political rights. The units of society, each within its own jurisdiction, can deprive all such antisocial adults of political rights (except the old, the sick, and those dependent on private or public subsidy) and will be obliged to restore their political rights as soon as they begin to live by their own labor.

Bakunin also refers to antisocial persons "who violate voluntary agreements, steal, inflict bodily harm, or above all, violate the freedom of any individual," and goes on to state that they:

will be penalized according to the laws of society. Individuals ... reserve the right to escape punishment by declaring that they wish to resign from that association. But in this case, the association will have the ... right to expel him and declare him outside its guarantee and protection.

Revolutionary Catechism by Michael Bakunin

This, also, is not an endorsement of a group's freedom to expel or refuse admission to given individuals. Bakunin is referring here to severe, criminal behavior, and the expulsion in question is allowable, he says, only because the individual has chosen to refuse the sanctions imposed by the community against his infraction. It is true that Bakunin's words leave a lot of room for interpretation -- for example, what, exactly, constitutes violation of "voluntary agreements" or the "freedom of any individual"? 

People can construe these terms in various ways (which is why much more elaboration is needed in terms of definition, protocol, investigation, and due process). However, it seems pretty obvious, in a common sense sort of way, that the interpretation would have to be pretty far reaching to justify the petty expulsion of "difficult" personalities that so often happens in anarchist groups and similarly minded collectives.

We are not suggesting that the writings of Bakunin or any other influential anarchist should be taken as gospel (so to speak!).  Yet, when people talk about the right of expulsion as a built-in tenet in anarchism, they are implying that there is some justifying gospel, which clearly does not exist.

Banning in Other Contexts

There are not a lot of other communities, besides anarchist activist circles, that ban unwanted or disruptive members. But the few that do are, tellingly, among the most repressive and rigid of societies. In all cases, the justification is -- chillingly -- the need to preserve the purity of the group's ideals.

Strict Jewish tradition, for example, allows for the possibility of expelling people who do not conform to the basic tenets of the faith. But even this description of religious law, which we would expect to be far more restrictive than the rules that govern anti-authoritarian institutions, states specifically that the exclusion cannot rise to the level of coercion:

Many religious communities cannot be fully open to any and all conduct by its members…. The right to religious exclusion cannot, however, rise to the level of implicit (or explicit) coercion to religious conformity. ...[I]n an insular and thoroughly intertwined Jewish community ... shunning was a form of compulsion and was thus only permitted when actual physical force was legally permitted according to Jewish law.

“Forming Religious Communities and Respecting Dissenter’s Rights:  A Jewish Tradition Model for a Modern Society” by Michael J. Broyde

Jehovah's Witnesses practice an extreme form of banning called disfellowshipping, through which a shunned member is no longer permitted to associate or even interact with other members.

One rationale for religious exclusion is based in the belief that the sacred texts and rituals must be kept in a pure state free from spiritual contamination from external beliefs. [T]he smaller the religious group, ... the greater their need to protect their beliefs and therefore the greater reliance on expulsion as a means of social control.

“Social Death: The Practice of Disfellowshipping/Shunning” by Lady Lee

A former Jehovah's witness provides an insightful analysis of how and why shunning is effective. Reading it, one might find that it comfortably echoes the attitudes of many anarchist groups:

Why the threat of shunning helped to keep me “in line” is clearer to me today. I believe that very night we “freed” the woman with the broken car, but we further enslaved ourselves to the Watchtower....We reinforced each other by participating in a crime. In order for me to accept my own (truly un-Christian) behavior I had to approve, reinforce, accept, and condone the behavior of all the other members of the group. Shunning gave me the illusion of power. The illusion of power to a powerless person is a drug.

“Shunning: A Part of the Faith of Jehovah’s Witnesses” by Gary Busselman

An Absence of Due Process

One of the most troubling issues in this commonly seen, wholesale method of dealing with conflict is the absence of fairness. Who decides which persons or forms of expression are unwanted? How is that decision arrived at? Is there some means to ensure that all sides of an issue are considered fairly? Very often, there isn't even a pretense of due process. Typically, someone gets blamed or targeted as the culprit for whatever is going wrong, then he is mercilessly dragged through the mud of gossip and rumor, until everyone's opinions are so firmly set against him that there is no possibility of coming to a fair assessment of what happened. We are not suggesting that those who get blamed are always blameless. But even in the highly flawed mainstream system of criminal justice, there is at least the presumption that everyone still deserves a fair hearing (though this might not always exactly happen in practice). In the egalitarian activist scene, there is no such assumption. Collective members are content to rely on rumors for information and to make decisions accordingly, often without even hearing from the accused.

Any individual being disparaged and vilified must be allowed to see the discussion that is happening and be able to respond. This is crucial for fairness and real democracy. Instead, we see a lot of behind-the-scenes gossip on e-mail lists that exclude the accused individual, as well as talks at secret social dinners and other kinds of meetings that can only further the vilification, completely voiding any formal attempts at a fair hearing further down the road. Thus, after a potential lynch mob has been stirred up for months, its very members are asked to be jurors at the accused's supposed fair trial. This is common in egalitarian groups, a sharp and ironic contrast with the standard idea in mainstream democracies that jurors must be carefully selected for impartiality.

Too often, ugly banishments happen because the collective has no guidelines for dealing with disagreements or dissension. Sometimes, this aspect of group  process is deliberately neglected  so that unofficial/unacknowledged hierarchies can continue to flourish. More often, however, the group simply tends to avoid something as unglamorous and arduous as working out processes to guarantee fair treatment and/or adequate conflict resolution among its own members. It is much more glamorous and exciting to focus on external, macro-organizational ideas with exciting historical precedent, such as forming grand federations or adopting historical statements from the Spanish anarchists of the '30s or Ukrainian anarchists of the 1920s. Unfortunately, the anarchist movement and most of the groups within it are not as developed or successful in the present environment. They would do better to focus more on the micro-organizational principles that might help to guarantee internal group integrity and the continued commitment of their own relatively small memberships.

It is particularly onerous to have to study and investigate a situation and patiently bring bickering factions together to resolve their differences while it is relatively easy simply to rally everyone around the idea of eliminating someone. But when we make a commitment to equality, we are implicitly extending that commitment even to people we don't like, don't agree with, or find intolerable. Instead of instituting a rigid rule that allows problems to be whitewashed or expunged, groups need to institute protocols that spell out the intermediate steps that can be taken before the last-resort option of expulsion.  Of course, all of this may seem tiresome when one could be a party to a juicy witch hunt instead.

Witch Hunts

There are good-faith witch hunts and bad-faith witch hunts. It may be hard to tell them apart, and they may even shade from one into the other, but the way to deal with them is the same: patience, analysis, and a formal process. Still, they bear describing.

In the good-faith witch hunt, well-meaning people have reached the end of their rope. Someone has tried their patience to such an extent that they don't know what else to do. Very often, there are only a few who have borne the brunt of dealing with a difficult personality or situation, maybe with little or no help from the rest of the membership. When things have come to a head and the beleaguered few want the perceived culprit gone, they may be appalled or outraged at anyone who does not instantly support them. They may see themselves as the hardworking and uncomplaining backbone, which deserves a little consideration now and then. And many of the members may agree, perhaps out of guilt. But should they go along with a personal vilification and expulsion just to be supportive? Ultimately, that sort of strategy will prove to be much more destructive than supportive, assuming people are still concerned about the integrity of the group.

There's no substitute for the tedious and painstaking work of finding out the truth and urging everyone to withhold judgment until all sides have been heard. Rarely is expulsion the only viable solution. 

Another form of good-faith witch hunt happens when a small group, usually a faction having some degree of power, cannot accept a viewpoint other than their own. Anyone who disagrees with their chosen course is seen as a deliberate obstacle or saboteur. If efforts to control and direct that person fail, then the person becomes unwanted, and the complaints against him may soon reach such a shrill pitch that the whole group finds they can no longer stand having him around.

Then there are the hard-core, bad-faith witch-hunts. These occur when a domineering member or faction intentionally looks to discredit and eject a person they consider a threat. Someone may be targeted precisely because she has made some mild attempt to point out that a self-appointed cabal has wrested control from the collective. Or the reviled person could simply have been singled out for being tiresome or unpopular, or for obtusely insisting on democratic process, which, if carried out, would have the effect of stripping the leadership of its authority.

It's worth noting that not everyone who is driven out of a group is forcibly expelled. Many more merely leave on their own, tired of the abuse or simply disillusioned. When a group allows that to happen, it  is no less reprehensible than an outright expulsion. For most purposes, it's the same thing. The difference is that the conniving leadership -- and the complicit collective -- are even less likely to be exposed for what they truly represent: the corruption of egalitarianism and the creation of coercive hierarchy.

Misuse of Consensus

Many egalitarian and anarchist groups operate on the basis of consensus or some form of modified consensus. In a consensus model, everyone must come to an agreement regarding the group's decisions; the minority cannot be outvoted by the majority or coerced into accepting a decision with which it does not agree. More broadly, consensus implies that everyone in the group is valuable and equal, and that the ideas, wishes, and concerns of any given member cannot be overruled or ignored but must be actively incorporated into the group's collective mode of operating. There are many collectives, however, that adopt only the decision-making aspect of the process while overlooking its fundamental core: equality, respect, mutual acceptance, and an open forum for the exchange of ideas.

The principles of consensus provide a philosophical basis for how group members should strive to interact, which, if followed, would theoretically prevent the situations described above. But consensus has too often been narrowly used to insist on unanimity, silencing voices that are not in agreement with the most vocal and influential participants, thereby fostering mistrust or resentment rather than trust and openness. We believe consensus needs to be applied in good faith and in all its nuances, including an insistence on fair dealing and honesty.

Many egalitarian groups pride themselves on their informality, which may work well in times of harmony and all-around understanding among members who share an affinity in goals and working styles. But when anger and hurt feelings arise and the atmosphere has become volatile, informality is no longer viable. Being informal under such circumstances too often means: "If you say so-and-so is an asshole, that's good enough for me." Fairness demands that conflicts be addressed in greater depth. Most people are not simply assholes but usually have a reason either to express dissent or to be upset with another person or a state of affairs. Those reasons must be explored if we are to resolve painful conflicts. Too often, instead, the origin of a disagreement is simply ignored, the issues involved are run over rough-shod, and the person who is perceived as being the source of the problem is summarily expelled.

A Self-Appointed Leadership

It is remarkably easy for someone to take over leadership of a group that is avowedly leaderless. Because we are acclimated to a mainstream society in which we're continually bossed around by parents, teachers or employers, many of us have become accustomed to letting someone else be in charge.  Consequently, when we don't have such marching orders, we might become listless and passive. A collective that is floundering in inaction is often ripe for authoritarian leadership.

A membership that feels that the leading elite is essential to the survival and functioning of the group, even when the very existence of a leader is not openly acknowledged, simply won't challenge a witch hunt called by the elite. In fact, people may react angrily toward someone who questions the wisdom of banning and vilifying a fellow activist, as they believe their role is to defend those who are keeping the group running. They may even join in the condemnation of a dissenter, because they don't like to have their little world jostled. They may readily agree that the troublemaker is not raising an issue but making a personal attack. Yet, in an egalitarian collective, fairness and transparency should take precedence over obsequious loyalties.

Identifying the Problem

Often individuals are simplistically characterized as "difficult" or "disruptive" while more complex dynamics are ignored.  When a group is in the throes of a nasty conflict, the situation can rarely, in truth, be so easily blamed on a single person. Sometimes dissenters have legitimate reasons to raise issues, even if they may do so in a manner that is abrasive or unpleasant, and the conflict will not be adequately resolved unless those issues are addressed.

People in power have always found ways to condemn the whistleblower for pointing out facts that are uncomfortable or inconvenient to them, in essence shooting the messenger. We should be savvy to this manipulation and not allow it to take hold within our own groups. Yet it's often the very first resort: when thorny issues are being aired and the comfort of the collective is shaken, we instantly look for someone to blame. Once the person who dared to ask questions is silenced or eliminated, a semblance of calm can be restored. That is not conflict resolution; it's conflict suppression.

Whenever someone is angry, frustrated, or afraid, it is usually for a reason. His behavior may not even have anything to do with what is happening within the collective. When a comrade is in distress, it is our role as fellow collective members to reach out a helping hand. If we take the trouble to discover the cause of a colleague's distress and find a way to be supportive, we may very well be able to end the objectionable behavior.

How To Identify a Bully

On the other hand, sometimes there is a problem with a particular personality who is truly intractable. In cases of outright cruelty or bullying, it's appropriate for the collective to help address the behavior (although it still does not mean the offender should be summarily expelled!). The key is to correctly identify who the culprit really is -- not in order to assign blame, but to avoid jumping to unfair conclusions. In the interest of fairness, we should not take anyone's statements at face value. People are usually all too happy to jump on a bandwagon of character assassination and are unlikely to be dissuaded from whatever stance they have chosen.

Looking at motive is often a useful way to evaluate statements made. Does the person have something to gain by lying? Is he a habitual liar? Manipulative and domineering members are likely to stir up fear in the group in order to strengthen their position. On the other hand, someone who raises issues that are likely to earn him the ire of the group's leadership is unlikely to be acting on selfish motives. When we are told, simply, that someone is "crazy" or "out of control," we can be pretty certain that this explanation is inadequate

Sometimes a person who is loud and prone to histrionics is labeled a bully, but it's easy to tell a bully by the outcome of her actions. If somebody yells a lot but no one listens, that's not a bully. A much more likely bully would be the smooth operator who is able to manipulate the group into believing her story and following her lead. The most effective bullies use both manipulation and intimidation.

Rarely does the group come to the defense of a member who is being bullied. As long as group censure consists of dumping on an unpopular person, especially if it's by e-mail or out of the individual's earshot, then people gleefully jump in. But when it comes to confronting a real bully, then -- poof! -- everyone disappears. Even if the bully has been, until that point, generally acknowledged as such, when somebody actually asks for help in calling her to task, suddenly nobody remembers having had any problems with her.

Responsibilities of the Collective

Whenever we become a part of a collective, we each take on the responsibility of tending to the affairs of the group as if we ourselves were solely entrusted with its well-being. If someone has had the opportunity to become so disruptive and intractable that the members who have to work with her can see no other way out besides giving her the boot, then the rest of the collective has not been mindful of its responsibility. When everyone is paying attention, situations can be managed long before they reach a boiling point. This is when the duty of loyalty to our comrades becomes most important, not further down the road, when an exhausted and defeated member begs the rest to join him in his resignation or his plans for taking revenge. In any case, solidarity never means blind acceptance of a colleague's allegations. It's possible to give emotional support and acknowledge feelings even while investigating facts.

It is the responsibility of all collective members to consider every matter that is brought to their attention, and to hear from all sides. Members should assume that every concern is sincere and treat it as such, but, particularly when one person's concern involves condemning another individual, everyone in the collective has to make every effort to get to the bottom of the issue. Ask questions. Investigate. Look for possible motives to help you ferret out the truth.

II. Drafting Solutions

We believe that there are four basic internal problems that egalitarian groups need to address in order to head off nasty conflicts and infighting:

 1) lack of established procedures to deal with grievances and disagreements;

 2) failure of group members to take responsibility for the functioning of the group, particularly in taking on difficult situations;

 3) inattention to power inequities within the group; and

 4) lack of clarity about the group's core beliefs.

Procedure

Proper procedure should be agreed upon by the group in times of peace and cool heads. It might include the right of any member to call a forum in which all sides can express their viewpoints; the formation of a grievance committee that can look into allegations of wrongdoing; or guaranteed access to mediators outside the group -- but it must always be clear enough, and in writing, at the very least, to be called upon even under stormy conditions.

Power Dynamics

Usually, situations that come to a boil have been simmering for a long time. When a group's internal dynamics are dysfunctional, sooner or later a problem will arise. That is why it is vital that a collective attend to the power dynamics among its members.

The most important principle in confronting or preventing power disparities is transparency. The power dynamic must be considered even by groups whose members do not believe there to be any problems. Inequalities in power are insidious and possibly unavoidable. For them not to derail a group that believes in equality, they must be brought out into the open.

Core Beliefs

When the group's ideals and values are clear and in writing, we have a blueprint for fair and equitable conflict resolution. If we believe we should emulate the values of equality, justice, acceptance, diversity, and kindness that we want to bring about in the broader society, then we can operate accordingly. It is not sufficient for an organization's members to hold vague beliefs that they abide by in theory; they must clearly define their principles and put them into practice.

Collectives that incorporate as non-profits are required by law to draft a mission statement letting potential supporters know about the work that the organization exists to achieve. Fulfilling the mission is a non-profit's legal reason for being. It's a good idea for all collectives to draft a mission statement to refer to whenever a decision needs to be made on how the group should act in a given situation.

If we believe in allowing dissent and freedom of expression, we won't jump down the throat of someone who brings up an uncomfortable issue. If we believe in mutual respect, we won't ridicule someone who says something we find venal. If we believe in diversity and acceptance, we won't disparage another's point of view or life experience. If we believe in individual freedom, we won't try to control another person. If we believe in anti-authoritarianism, we won't try to force someone to submit to our will, nor will we accept another's authority without speaking up. If we believe in fairness, we won't try to railroad another person. If we believe in honesty, we won't lie to get our way. If we believe in openness and transparency, we won't try to manipulate or obfuscate a situation. People react badly to being treated badly. Sometimes averting a conflict, which often arises merely out of hurt feelings, is as simple as that.