The Problem with Progressive Stacking

[psychojediboy]

I'd like to bring up what I see as some major issues with the adoption of OWS's progressive stacking by ON. I'm hesitant because I expect the reaction to be "here's another white guy trying to protect his privilege." I hope everyone will consider my points carefully before having a knee-jerk reaction. The last two GA minutes posts have mentioned progressive stacking. I tried to respond to the 10/11 post on the subject, but my reply hasn't appeared on the board more than 12 hours later. This strikes me as a very troubling stifling of dissent by Occupy Nashville. I hope I'm wrong and that there's a reasonable explanation, but that's ultimately beside the point.

First, progressive stacking has nothing to do with the stated goals of Occupy Nashville. According to the minutes of last night's GA, the two things ON is concerned with are corporate personhood and corporate money in politics. These are economic issues, while progressive stacking is a response to social issues. If we're to be focused and clear on these two goals we shouldn't muddy the waters with other issues.

Second, progressive stacking contradicts ON's claim to be politically neutral. Many people have said that those of all political beliefs are welcome if they support the overall message of the movement. Progressive stacking, however, is a very far left practice, and using it in ON's most important daily meetings identifies the group as belonging to the far left. This absolutely will prevent people from the center and the right from joining. It's extremely divisive in a group that claims to want everyone to feel welcome.

Third, it creates a very easy target for the right wing media to attack. They hate the message, they fear the movement, and they're doing everything they can to mock us. There's no need to give them any more ammunition. Be focused on the economic message and that alone. Remember that if this is truly politically neutral, a lot of the 99% who should be our natural allies watch Fox News and listen to Glen Beck. Giving the right wing media another easy point of attack will only make the problems addressed in my second point worse. It also gives them the opportunity to bring up my first point and paint us as dishonest. "They say they're nonpolitical, but their meetings are conducted using extremely liberal practices. It's a radical liberal socialist un-American brainwashing cult!" Come on, can't you just hear it? And people will believe it just like they believed death panels and birtherism

Fourth, it's undemocratic. The 99% movement says over and over that it's completely democractic. The most basic tenet of democracy is that all people have an equal voice and no one is more or less valuable than another. Some of the reasons for progressive stacking mentioned in the famous Feministing article are excellent points, such as preventing the most aggressive speakers from always going first and making long speeches. This could also be addressed by somehow randomizing the speaking order. Stack speakers by random number draw, or place the names of all interested speakers into a hopper and draw a random name to select the next speaker. Maybe institute a time limit.

Please, please, please give what I've said some thought. On the surface progressive stacking may seem like a noble practice but in the end it will help keep this movement from entering the mainstream. It's divisive, undemocratic, and dilutes our focus on the problems of economic inequality and thereby makes us look dishonest about our intentions.

[Shire]

I can't speak for everyone... and I will respond shortly to this because I've got class in just a little bit! I can't speak for many minority groups (I'm white, after all) but I can speak as a woman, and as a woman, it's hard to get your voice heard. I don't know if that makes sense to you, but it really is. We're raised to be quieter and told to listen instead of talk and discouraged when we are seen as too assertive or too opinionated. That's a reality that we face every day. A progressive stacking encourages women and other minorities to actually speak up when otherwise we would not be able to, or be discouraged from doing so. In a "democratic" way of stacking, as you say, it's not really stacking. It's not organized. It's often likely to be people vying for attention to speak next, and it always seems to be a white male who cuts and interrupts because he feels it is his right to be heard. Please don't think I'm cutting down white men, I'm dating one after all and everyone at the plaza has been great so far, white or not, male or not. Progressive stacking cuts down on that a little bit. It still happens occasionally, but not as much as I feel it would were it not stated that women and POCs will be given the opportunity to make their voices and opinions heard. I feel like otherwise, it's not even considered that women and POCs will have something to say. I heard a woman saying yesterday that in the committee meetings, she still felt like it was the 'good ol boys club', because she was never once acknowledged or recognized when she wanted to say something. The guys just took over and dominated the discussion without the thought ever occurring to them that a woman would have something to say. She was completely ignored. This is the environment of subtle sexism that we want to keep away from the plaza. I understand your concerns, but I think they are more or less unfounded.

I don't know if you've been at the GAs since progressive stacking was initiated, but it hasn't been controversial at all. Everyone reached consensus that progressive stacking would be the way we would organize our GAs.

And I must say that I don't particularly appreciate your saying that giving me or other women or POCs a fair voice in our issues is "divisive". Women and minorities are the ones who have been most drastically effected by the economic tanking. They need to be given the voice to help fix our problems. Not in exclusion of white men, but together with them.

And trust me. There are still plenty of white men at the GAs talking. I would say they are still the majority.

[psychojediboy]

Nowhere did I say that giving anyone a fair voice is divisive. I said prefering one voice to another, no matter whose voice it is, is divisive and will keep people who aren't of a more liberal political persuasion from joining the movement. The movement that is supposedly about economic issues.

So by your post, I take it women and minorities were not heard in this organization before progressive stacking?

It's disappointing that you didn't address any of my points at all, but unfortunately I'm not surprised. I wonder what the reaction to the logical arguments would have been if I'd posted with a feminine username.

[Shire]

what? look, I said I have to get to class and don't have time to address.

I said I'm not attacking. Don't take it as such. Don't post something that will obviously upset people if you don't want to hear people giving you their opinions on the matter.

I can promise you white men are still being heard. That's not an issue. It's just making sure that other voices are heard, as well, when otherwise they might not be. If you raise your hand you will be called on. The only reason you wouldn't be is if we run out of time, not because a woman or a black guy raises his hand to speak.

[psychojediboy]

Which is not at all what I said. Not even close. Guess I was right about the knee jerk reaction.

[tweedbolt]

For the sake of fairness, I think random sorting would be the most prudent measure.  I understand the desire to ensure that marginalized voices are heard, but giving any group preferred speaking status only creates the potential for some other group to be marginalized.  Now, I'm aware that the idea of white guys are in no danger of being marginalized, and, eventually, everyone gets to talk, but you've still created an unnecessarily adversarial situation, albeit a silly one that I don't personally think is worth getting this excited over.  It puts us into a we and they mindset, which, I believe, is harmful.  If we really want systemic reform, we need to start thinking, not in terms of we vs. they, but mechanic vs. machine.  We are not fighting a group of people; we are fighting a system.

[psychojediboy]

Exactly. If this is about people protesting systemic economic unfairness that hurts us all, we need to focus on that. If it's a social movement about past injustice and people who are traditionally marginalized, fine, but be honest about it. The middle class and the poor are suffering under our current system and need a movement focused on that issue.There's a disconnect here between the words and the practice.

[MmmBeefy]

A solid point, random sorting would likely achieve the same effect without the divisiveness.  

Kind of a ramble with interrelated ideas:

Keep in mind that divide and conquer is the most effective tool in the 1% arsenal.  Even though it's well-intentioned and addresses a valid concern, progressive stacking is playing out the "divide and conquer" meme.  Another very effective tool in the arsenal:  "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will slaughter me."  It is part of the collective, engineered psychosis that we are so incredibly sensitive to perceived slights, petty bickering, etc.  Nothing better than to keep the plebs fighting each other over the meaningless.  Finally, to quote Kierkegaard, "Once you label me, you negate me."  We are human beings that want to be treated fairly by other human beings that are not treating us fairly.  The 99% is everyone.  Repub/Dem, progressive/conservative, man/woman, gay/straight, black/white, notice the divisor here, divide, divide, divide.  Stop it!  Stop doing that to yourself, and stop doing it to others!  Division is the poison pill that kills every movement towards good.  Knock it off!

[tristanc]

Hello friends,

This is Tristan from the Facilitation Working Group. Another Occupier pointed this thread out to me so that we could clarify the purpose of progressive stacking. Feel free to continue debate on this here, or to get involved in the Facilitation Working Group if you'd like to participate in the continuing evolution of our democratic and inclusive decision-making process.

Progressive Stacking basically, as we've outlined it, has two components. One is that people who have already spoken should only speak after others who haven't spoken yet. This is to make sure that in a general assembly like last night's, approaching 150 people, as many people have the chance to participate as possible. There were still many opportunities for many people to speak twice or even 10 or 15 times in the case of last night, but they didn't get to speak before other people who we hadn't heard from yet.

The second element, which seems (in this thread) to have been more controversial, is that we want to make sure not only every individual has the chance to be heard, but that we also make sure that people from a diversity of backgrounds and experiences get to participate. That means we take notice (though, to be fair, it is not always easy to tell from appearances!) if whether men are speaking more than women, if white folks are speaking more than Asians, if people wearing suits get to speak more than people who are barefoot, and so on. This means we try to (sensitively and carefully, and diplomatically) rotate between people who come from different backgrounds on our speakers' stack.

That's the basic nuts and bolts. Of course, we could write entire essays on the theory or the observed sociology of this process. Our impression (like Shire noted earlier) is that this practice has been pretty uncontroversial during our GA's, and a lot of people have felt like it made those who might otherwise not have felt as safe speaking able to participate more freely. And, of course, to put some limits on those who might otherwise have back-and-forth discussions with a passive audience of a hundred people just listening.

Psychojediboy, I'll try to reply a little later to your specific points about the desirability or theoretical and practical concerns with this element of consensus process. I'll just address two here: the idea that progressive stacking is 'far left' and the idea that it will be demonized by the right-wing media.

I've never heard the idea that progressive stacking is 'far left'. I'm not sure what that means, even. Quite a lot of far-left groups actually have very hierarchical structures (counterproductive to their aims, I would argue, but certainly this happens in a lot of Left groups). Progressive stacking is intended to be a method of ensuring inclusive and participatory democracy, and as far as we have been able to tell, it is only "far left" if participatory democracy is also 'far left'. (that of course is a debate in itself).

And I have no doubt that this could be demonized by hostile media- though I sort of doubt they would single that out, since they have in general been much more likely to demonize our practices of direct action (that is, the occupation itself) and our statements about economic inequality and corporate rule, than how we go about running our meetings. That's not to say it won't happen- it very well could- but I'm not sure media hostility to a self-consciously democratic process should influence overmuch our decision of whether to use that practice, especially when it has seemed as useful and uncontroversial as this one has (at least during the GA's).

This doesn't exactly represent the opinions of others on the Facilitation Working Group, necessarily, but I think it basically reflects the spirit of our discussions.

Tristan

---------- Post added at 02:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:04 PM ----------

Oh, and very quickly, just one other clarification:

Actually, the "Progressive Stack" and the idea y'all are suggesting of "random sorting" are pretty similar in practice. No one really gets to speak 'preferentially' just because of their background- it's more an issue of order of speakers, so that we alternate a bit. Where the stack really alters the situation is in giving preference to people who haven't spoken over people that have- which isn't "random", but does help 'randomize', in a sense, the people who end up speaking at any given assembly, because it increases the number of speakers.

Tristan

[Lynette]

Again, if you have an issue with progressive stacking, take it up to the GA. This was used because there was consensus to use it.  

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

[psychojediboy]

Tristan, thank you for the genuine response and explanation. I will be curious to see what you have to say about the other points. My intention here is not to attack a sacred cow, though from some of the responses that seems to be how some took it. I'm trying to anticipate and avoid a potential future problem. Eventually there has to be some movement beyond just the occupation of public spaces and the movement has to grow beyond what can still easily be dismissed as a fringe movement. My concerns are presented in an attempt to foresee future stumbling blocks in this movement becoming mainstream in a state as conservative as Tennessee.

You should be aware - and maybe already are - that the way progressive stacking is very clearly defined in other sources, such as the article linked from the 10/11 GA minutes, as a system of racial and gender preferences with white men at the bottom. No mention is made of preference for people who haven't spoken, or of the randomization effect you mention. I want to be clear that what I'm saying is not that white men should be preferred instead of someone else. It's that the word is getting around that OWS and other occupation groups follow a system where any female or minority always gets to speak first, beyond all other concerns. This isn't an equitable or democratic way to treat people, but if that's the perception of the practice it will hurt the movement's appeal with people on the center and right side of the political spectrum, even if they agree with the economic principles. I would hope some would be willing to at least consider that possibility rather than taking instant offense to being questioned.

---------- Post added at 03:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:57 PM ----------

Again, if you have an issue with progressive stacking, take it up to the GA. This was used because there was consensus to use it.  

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk

Sorry, didn't realize I needed your permission to discuss the topic on a message board.

If you guys ever wonder why people would feel unwelcome  or shot down on the forums (as mentioned in last night's GA minutes), I'd point you to a couple of the responses in this thread.

[Shire]

Maybe that's my fault for not taking minutes down correctly. I was paraphrasing while people were talking very quickly.

Women and minorities don't get to speak *first*, per se, only that it will be made sure that their voice is heard, especially if they are raising their hand and there has been an imbalance of voices.

You don't need permission... Lynette is saying that if you want to change this practice, it needs to be brought up at a GA in order to do that. We can't make decisions from the forums.

[Aunt Molly]

Hi, I'm Katy, and I'm a member of the Facilitation Working Group.  First, I would love to send out the invitation to join the group, and help us in our constant retooling of the consensus process we're using, to make it more fair and effective.

I think it's right for us to be careful about how those in the role of 'stacker' are operating, because it's true that anyone who gets to call on people to speak has a lot of power in their hands.  This is why it's so important that we constantly rotate new people into that role, so that nobody can hold that power for too long.  We're also working on developing regular Facilitator Trainings to move more people into the facilitation team.  Please encourage new people to talk with us and move into some of these roles.

I was the 'stacker' for the meeting on Tuesday night, and I wanted to let people in this thread know what I was doing.  First, during the group break-outs I made the rounds to find people who wanted to be on the agenda.  Once I had those, I tried to order them in a way that made sense.  For the announcements, I tried to put one energizing, encouraging one at the beginning, to build a good ambiance.  After proposals that had the potential to be divisive, I tried to place proposals that could easily be agreed on, so people didn't feel like they were too bogged down.  And I did have the idea of switching from male to female speakers, but since most of the people on the agenda were men, it didn't really create a pattern.  In general, I think organizing the list made the meeting better than drawing them out of a hat would have.

During the meeting, I moved around to make sure I was watching all the participants, and whenever someone made a sign to speak, I approached them and put them on a list (I either wrote down their name or something like 'yellow shirt') to remind me.  If someone was on there who had been speaking a lot, and someone else got my attention who hadn't spoken at all, I would point to that new person to go first.  I didn't have much time to really evaluate whether someone was coming from a marginalized community--but many of the people who hadn't spoken much and thus got bumped up to the front of the list were women.  And the idea of paying attention to groups of people who often don't get their ideas heard was an important ideal for me in this situation, even if it was difficult to carry out in practice.

I can understand that this can create frustration.  I was that nerd in school that sat in class sometimes with my arm straight up while others thought through an answer to the problem, and I definitely got frustrated that the teacher at the front wouldn't just call on me.  But now I've had experience as a university teacher, and I'm more understanding, particularly when it comes to what we're doing in the General Assemblies: the act of building democracy happens in a community, not just out of the ideas of a few people who have it 'right,' and part of creating that community is coaxing out the ideas and experiences of everyone there.  

That said, it's something that will build over time.  I'll be in the Facilitation Working Group break-out at the GA tonight if you'd like to share more of your thoughts with me.

[psychojediboy]

Maybe that's my fault for not taking minutes down correctly. I was paraphrasing while people were talking very quickly.

The impression came more from outside sources than from the minutes. I had heard of progressive stacking last week, and read the link and a few other items about it, both positive and negative, that seemed to give a very different picture of it.

Women and minorities don't get to speak *first*, per se, only that it will be made sure that their voice is heard, especially if they are raising their hand and there has been an imbalance of voices.

And I just want to be sure it's clear that I was never objecting to making sure all voices are heard. It's always been my experience that you're more likely to get a thoughtful, insiteful comment from someone who's mostly been sitting quietly than from someone who can't wait to talk. I would even think it might be good to seek out people who don't choose to speak but are clearly engaged, even if it's a one on one thing after a meeting. It probably wouldn't be productive to put a shy person on the spot in a GA, but it could be useful to just see what the quiet ones are thinking.

You don't need permission... Lynette is saying that if you want to change this practice, it needs to be brought up at a GA in order to do that. We can't make decisions from the forums.

That wasn't exactly my intention, either. I wanted to bring up my concerns and have them heard and considered. Think about it from a different angle, even if it wasn't a controversial topic to start with. I thought there was potential for lost opportunities down the road. Now I'm more concerned about perception issues...but that's nothing new for the occupation movement.

Hi, I'm Katy, and I'm a member of the Facilitation Working Group. First, I would love to send out the invitation to join the group, and help us in our constant retooling of the consensus process we're using, to make it more fair and effective.

...

That said, it's something that will build over time. I'll be in the Facilitation Working Group break-out at the GA tonight if you'd like to share more of your thoughts with me.

Katy, thank you so much for the insight into the process. That really helps to understand what's going on and how this works as opposed to how it's described. I'd love to at least listen in on one of the group's breakout sessions, though it'll probably be the middle of next week before I can make it to a GA because I'm going out of town with my family for a few days. I'll definitely be there when we get back.

[daryl]

Which is not at all what I said. Not even close. Guess I was right about the knee jerk reaction.

You're really too self-absorbed and sensitive for this stuff aren't you.