Reprise: An interesting set of environmental challenges are provided by the fact that many of the benefits sought by living things such as people are disproportionately available to cooperating groups. --Robert Axelrod, Evolving New Strategies, The Evolution of Strategies in the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, July 22, 2001

Reprise: ~"We are all individuals here. ... I know it sounds like a contradiction but while we're all individuals here, in what we do, we're also as one." --Peter Godwin of Bruderhof, April 2003

Reprise: Service (1975:50-53) informal leaders were likely to possess admirable self-assertive skills in hunting or warfare, these qualities were combined with "generosity, kindness, and freedom from bad temper, such that the person becomes highly respected and his opinions [carried] more weight than other, still older men." In effect, these leaders were sharing their ideas with the group in the form of suggestions, without asserting any authority.

a leader cannot force a personally chosen strategy on the entire group, yet the rank and file can be quite responsive to leadepship in certain contexts. -(Boehm 1999:40) [emphasis added]

Reprise: An individual identified by modern observers as a "leader" in small groups acted as a "facilitator as opposed to governor or ruler." "Their influence is subtle and indirect" and "They never order or make demands of others." Such an individual possessed "admirable self-assertive skills in hunting or warfare" as well as "generosity, kindness, and freedom from bad temper," and, a-la Crazy Horse, is "noticeably reserved and modest." And, presumably as a result of all this according to our observers, "his opinions [carried] more weight than other, still older men." None the less, such respected folks were "sharing their ideas with the group in the form of suggestions, without asserting any authority" and were thus "obliged to lead by example." Thus small-group "Leaders were weak and merely assisted a consensus- seeking process when the group needed to make decisions."

[Hillary Clinton believes in coercive diplomacy: <BULLY_Hillary's'coercive_diplomacy'_CNN_debate_080131.VOB>]

Mr Bush told Syria that it "must co-operate" with Washington as it continues its effort to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. ... "We believe there are chemical weapons in Syria," Mr Bush said. "We expect co-operation and I'm hopeful that we will receive co-operation." US tells Syria to co-operate or risk conflict, Tim Reid in Washington, www.timesonline.co.uk, April 14, 2003

Rehabilitating Co-operation

The SUBTOPICS:

Quaker Process

Why Bother?

The Poisoning

Co-operation during "emergencies"

How Coercion Corrodes

Rehabilitating Cooperation

Co-operation at work:

- "co-operating" with the cops, etc.

When I was teaching, I tried to free-up my class room, but the kids didn't understand -- they thought it was play time because they'd never been given a chance to learn self disipline, which is a necessary precursor to true co-operation -- when you make promises you have to be aware you have and you have to keep them because others are depending on your performance. There are of course other precursors: ^^w

First of all, true co-operation requires a context where there is {absolutely no} Authoritarian intimidation -- and little or no intimidation of any kind at all, other than, possibly, the projection of possible real-world consequences, completely unrelated to Authoritarian (hierarchical) intimidation, "enforcement," or retalliation -- "If you go out without your jacket, you may catch a cold," vs. "If you go out without your jacket, I'll spank you," would be an example. One of the main problems is that the difference between the two can appear quite subtle within today's coercive hierarchical social context. These differences wouldn't be subtle at all to small-group ancestors -- or those used to Quaker Process type deliberations at the group level -- or an American indian "tribal council." Indeed, the differences would stand out like proverbial "sore thumbs."

This is the context for truly voluntary co-operation. It is necessary to get rid of as much of the feeling of being compelled or coerced into doing anything as possible to free an individual to participate to the utmost. Otherwise you will trigger some of our "instincts for freedom," causing not co-operation, but the exact opposite, opposition -- or certainly less than enthusiastic participation. Remember, you don't get someone's whole-hearted co-operation -- or support -- just because they lost a vote and you won it.

-^^w Voting as a less-than-full-disclosure emergency-mode tactic

Quaker Process: A Model for Co-operation

The following is taken, verbatim, from Board of Trustees at Friends School of Baltimore . It is a description of the "Quaker Process" which people have used for over 300 years to reach consensus. There are a few other such techniques, but this may be the best known.

For more than 300 years, Friends meetings, organizations, and institutions have deliberated in such a way that the inner light of each might illuminate the thinking of all. Meetings for business, like meetings for worship, begin and end in silence. Whenever groups gather to discern direction and make decisions, they use a process that is fluid in its practices--and firm in its principles. Quaker process, as practiced by the Board, might be described as follows:

Sense of the Meeting

1. In making decisions, members of the Board and of Board Committees do not vote. Rather than using ballots or a show of hands to let a majority override a minority (or minorities), trustees seek positions that all can support.

2. As the Board and its committees build consensus, they work in the spirit of Quakers, who in their deliberations seek a "sense of the meeting" that fully expresses the divine leading sought by those gathered together to do business. There are two important points to make about consensus:

Consensus is not the same as compromise. To compromise is to pare down a proposal, each "side" giving up something. Consensus, by contrast, pools ideas and information to build a better proposal. Consensus does not require unanimous assent before action can occur. Anyone not comfortable approving the "sense of the meeting" may "step aside," allowing business to go forward. On rare occasion, someone may be neither comfortable with a decision nor comfortable stepping aside; then no decision is reached for the time being.

Right Order

3. As in Quaker meetings, discussion in Board and Board Committee meetings is free-flowing though, even without a system like Roberts' Rules of Order, there is a "right order" set forth for doing business:

All meetings begin with silent worship during which all attending can set aside preconceived ideas, prepare to listen to others to and to the spirit within, and become disposed to move forward as a group.

An agenda lays out the business ahead and differentiates between informational items and matters requiring decision The chair or clerk clarifies who will make the final decision on any given issue-the Head of School, for example, or the faculty, or the students, or a committee of the Ooard. Discussion is candid; everyone comes to meetings having read materials and prepared to contribute to discussion; the pace and tone encourage thoughtful and respectful interchange; silence frames remarks and, should discussion become heated, the chair or clerk may call for a period of silence before discussion continues.

Minutes record the high points of discussion, and reading back a "minute" written on the spot helps to confirm the wording of any decision reached.

As do Friends, the Board and its committees "lay over" any decision of significance: presented at one meeting, it is not approved until the next, allowing time for further conversation, more gathering of information, and careful review to be sure a decision squares with School precedent and Quaker principles. Though purposeful and pragmatic, the Board believes that process is more important than press of time.

Meetings end with a period of silence.

A Sense of Community

4. Good record keeping is important. Minutes of meetings are kept on file, and significant decisions appear as policy statements in the Board's Policy Manual.

5. Sometimes business must be confidential, but ordinarily the goal is to be open about decisions and the reasoning supporting them. No matter the tenor of a discussion, once a decision is reached, all support it publicly.

The Friends School Board of Trustees shares with Friends organizations generally a trust in the power of good process to produce good outcome. In the conduct of Friends School business, as in Quaker worship, there is a spirit of optimism as everyone, in Quaker parlance, "waits for the way to open." Each conclusion reached or action approved by any group of trustees as a result of a well-ordered style of decision-making is satisfying to all-innovative and more enlightened than the thinking that any one person does before a meeting begins. As they go forth at the end of their meetings, trustees have faith that decisions they have reached together will turn out to be sound and right.

last updated: November 8, 2002

Quaker Process echos the way native americans did it before their process was subverted by the Europeans - - -

I have mentioned several times that the general council was a decision-making body common to many American Indians and that it survives into the present. In the early period, when general councils were more than simply meetings dominated by the Indian Agents, the members ultimately reached agreement in one of two ways. Either participants continued discussions until everybody concurred in a course of action, or, in times of emergency such as war when decisions could not be postponed pending the achievement of unanimity, recognized leaders decided for the group; but only after hearing from everyone who wished to speak. Thus, whether or not the participants were allowed to vote on the final decision, they were permitted to voice their opinions. Those of you who have had many relations with modem Indian groups know that general meetings which are adjourned before all those who care to speak have done so are often resented by the Indian participants. --Journal of American Indian Education, Volume 3 Number 1, October 1963, INFORMAL POWER STRUCTURES WITHIN, INDIAN COMMUNITIES, Commissioner of Indian Affairs James E. Officer

Even the U.S. Congress, within itself, works similarly - - -

Congress has to operate informally, according to [Rep. Barney] Frank, [(D-MA)] ... because Congress has no clear power hierarchy. ..."Nobody in the House of Representatives can give any other member an order. The speaker is more influential than a new Republican from Texas, but he can't order anybody to do anything. Nobody can fire anybody. So what that means is that you become influential by persuading people, being likable, and having other people respect you but not resent you." [1] --Hedrick Smith, The Power Game (New York: Ballantine Books 1988), p 53 & 54

Why Bother?

Now all this may seem like a lot of work -- why bother? Aside from the obvious social cohesion advantages, there are also the practical advantages. Remember, according to Axelrod, "many of the benefits sought by living things such as people are disproportionately available to cooperating groups," and, from Bob Waldrop's experience, co-operation makes groups perhaps five times more effective than the alternatives . And, of course, there's the huge advantage of using all that "information possessed by every one of the participants .... which exists only dispersed among uncounted persons." ^^w [THAI VILLAGERS WHO DON'T LIKE WHAT BUREAUCRAT DOES AND SO BUREAUCRAT DOESN'T WIN HEARTS AND MINDS] A significant portion of the advantage may be that co-operation gets rid of our genetic opposition to being told what to do.

^^wThere's a perversion of group decision process common in hierarchical contexts that rightly has a bad name. It is called "groupthink." It may be worth a cursory examination here in order to separate it from legitimate group decisions and thus dismiss any lingering doubts about the efficacy of the above processes. A classic example of "groupthink" was thoroughly documented when that process was blamed for the Challenger disaster.

The Poisoning

As we know, we humans have a natural aversion to being told what to do by an Authority or anyone else -- except, perhaps, in a patriarchical family situation -- or a true emergency. But "Authorities" in modern societies go far beyond just telling us what to do: We're chronically coerced -- threatned and intimidated into doing all sorts of things -- with the same techniques, remember, used to establish hierarchies and pecking orders -- and to establish and maintain "centralized political authority" -- by use of intimidating displays, etc., all of which were completely unacceptable to our egalitarian ancestors. Remember the cops and the IRS, and - - -

I suggested earlier in this chapter that the "authority" of top male chimpanzees has everything to do with a greedy, bullying style of domination, and much less to do with the centralized political authority we associate with human governance. Weber (1947) defines such authority in terms of an ability to control the behavior of others through threat or application of coercive force, and we all know from dealing with the state highway patrol and tax collectors that such authority is pervasive in modern nations. By contrast, an individual adult chimpanzee is basically on its own, as is an individual hunter in a human band. (Boehm 1999:39)

In the interest of maintaining "centralized political authority," explicit coercion has become one of the most prevalent aspects in modern societies. "Big Brother" is watching -- and we know it. But it has become so prevalent, it has also metastacized into the nearly universal chronic subliminal and implicit background to most of what we do with each other on the individual person-to-person level as well.

^^w

[High School students realize they are not free]!!!!!!!.TXT Recently, I spent one class period discussing current events with my public high school students.

And this subliminal background coercion isn't limited to the political sphere; it's oozed into nearly every facet of our daily lives as well. "Professional Wrestling" shows, composed almost entirely of dramatized coercion and intimidation displays, has become one of the most successful ventures in show business. If we're not careful, we regularly find ourselves attempting to intimidate each other rather than employing the non-coercive, cooperative, alternatives.

In our natural non-emergency, non-patriarchy state though, we're as likely to do the opposite of what someone tells us to do -- or criticize, ridicule, ignore, shun, ostracize, banish, etc. those who try. That's why small group "leaders" never order or make demands of others, cannot boss another man, and do not "assert authority." They can't! But small ancestral-size groups could and did -- can and do -- regularly reach consensus by {"Quaker Process" }other sorts of procedures, and so co-operate. We might even suggest egalitarians, because they can't use coercion "suffer" from chronic co-operation.

The question is, "How did all this posionous coercion come to permeate modern civilizations?"

POISON 1: Apparently thru "Great Transitions," to ameliorate our instincts for freedom, newly hierarchical cultures retain the language of co-operation but place it in a context of hierarchical threats, displays and coercive intimidation. The modern results: We regularly have the idea of co-operation expressed in the language of co-operation but in a coercive context. This is well illustrated by U.S. President George W. Bush in the clip beginning this chapter, particularly in the title to the piece, "US tells Syria to co-operate or risk conflict."

Similarly, the notion and context of the word "voluntary" has also been severely corrupted:

Israel's ruling Likud party has as one of its stated goals the denial of a Palestinian state. In the hopes of accomplishing this, they continue to make Palestinians destitute and homeless while planting as many settlers in the West Bank as possible. The ultimate goal is the expulsion or "voluntary transfer" of all the indigenous population. Many politicians such as Minister Benny Elon have been quite explicit about what they mean by "voluntary transfer." "It's like a man who refuses to give his wife a divorce," Elon said. "According to Jewish law, the defiant husband can be jailed and slashed until he voluntarily complies." --Sorry, but there's no balance to be found, yellowtimes.org Wednesday, January 29, 2003 @ 00:00:12 EST By Raff Ellis

So now, in a somewhat analogous fashion to the way we moderns confuse "Authoritarian leadership" with temporary knowledge-based situational "leadership by a small-a authority" -- a mistake our small-group ancestors almost certainly wouldn't make -- we moderns develop the subliminal habit of confusing truly voluntary co-operation with what is essentially coerced "co-operation," complete with threats of "co-operate or risk conflict," being "jailed and slashed until he voluntarily complies," etc.

"Coerced co-operation" isn't co-operation at all. They say, "We'll work together," but they mean, "You'll do whatever I tell you to do or else." That's equivalent to slavery -- except using the word "slavery" is at least honest about the situation. For our purposes here then, any form of "coerced co-operation" can be considered to be what it really is: less-than-honest slavery.

Ultimately coercion is based on threats of pain. M.O.s of "coercion," remember, are to "threaten," "intimidate," "browbeat," "extort," "alarm," "dismay," "scare," "frighten," and "terrify" -- which are also the tactics and emotions integral to maintaining a hierarchy or "pecking-order" -- and to establishing and/or maintaining "centralized political authority." We all subliminally learn the "modern" reality that the word "co-operation" quite often refers to the coercion- perverted slavery form of "co-operation."

Since this modern use of the word "co-operation" now regularly carries the subliminal implication of coercion, it may often evoke our "instincts for freedom" which then deploy against "co-operation," which is now subliminally percieved as coercive. This means that in the modern context, any process labeled "co-operation" almost automatically becomes suspect, right along with the more obviously coercive ones. We have even developed the quite descriptive term "co-opted" to describe the defacto slavery that often results.

Another poisoned phrase is "voluntary compliance." Since pain, as it's function demands, requires first attention, we all learn the "modern definition" and the pure non-coercive ancestral form get's buried at the end of the queue and ultimately almost completely forgotten.

In America, we have coerced "voluntary compliance" to the Corporate Income tax and other symptoms of this corruption and resultant slavery. These are the symptoms of the first way co-operation has been poisoned -- by subliminal coercion and {combined with }mis-directive language.

POISON 2: The skill-set that true co-operation requires is vanishing into disuse. On the other hand in small groups where group mates -- especially when acting as temporary "leaders" -- could never order or make demands of others, cannot boss another man, and do not "assert authority," everyone grew up with an every-day working knowledge of true non-coercive co-operation and knew how to do it -- there weren't any viable alternatives. Co-operation was the "water" these "fish" swam in every day. It was probably mostly intuitive and not even often conscious.

But once coercion-hierarchy became established during a Great Transition -- and the ascendancy of leaders and their extended families was acknowledged and made morally legitimate the language and everyday reality of co-operation was poisoned and the seemingly more efficient "coerced co-operation" became the norm. The true co-operation skill-set, universally typical of small groups, gradually became a dusty relic, practiced in fully functioning form only by Quakers, native Americans, and other quaint minorities. The second way co-operation was poisoned, then, was thru disuse.

POISON 3: Trust is poisoned. During true co-operation, control passes back and forth among the co-operators as one or the other has specific knowledge of part of the project that others lack. Perhaps you take a pit break and when you come back, you find the post you had been helping with is already installed. You don't know where the next post is going and have to take a cue from Aug. You have to trust that Aug knows what's going on (signaled by the alpha complex of signals usually) and he isn't trying to trip you up, make a fool of you, or take advantage of you in some way. A simple and natural thing in small groups, but not in today's coercive societies.

Without trust what should be the seamless and transparent back-and-forth transfer of control, based on shifting up-to-date information among participants, the hallmark of true co-operation, no longer functions smoothly and co-operation breaks down big time. {Russian trip} Once the "norm" becomes coerced "co-operation," a.k.a. "slavery," some of our instincts for freedom kick in. We get stubborn. We feel we're "out of control," manipulated, lied-to, and don't trust the honesty of leaders -- any leaders -- and Carrie Keating discovers that's for good reason. Distrust spreads right along with the coercion. Anyone who tries to get us to do anything is, to our instincts for freedom, subliminally and immediately under suspicion of being a lying hierarchist upstart leader and we rebel to the degree we can. Or, lacking the strength or confidence to resist, we capitulate and become one of the overwhelmed "sheeple."

The third way co-operation is poisoned, then, is by degredation of trust.

Co-operation during "emergencies"

We may regard the control situation during so-called "emergencies" as a special kind of co-operation. That is, during "emergencies" there's no time to bring all group members up-to-date information wise, let alone run Quaker Process. At this point only one or a few people can know the big picture, remember. This puts them, defacto, in charge. And temporarily that's not only O.K., but may be necessary. This is "emergency co-operation" where there is one information-dominant co-operator and the rest of the co-operators trust his perceptions and directions and that he won't try to become permanently in charge. {refer to Boehm on "generals" during warfare} It is under such emergency co-operation that ""the rank and file can be quite responsive to leadership." (Boehm 1999:40)

In small egalitarian groups, a temporary "leader" operating under an "emergency mode" temporary suspension of autonomy might make a mistake, but would not likely abuse his temporary power to "aggrandize his prerogatives," else no one would follow him next time he invoked "emergency." Luckily, remember, true emergencies are by nature short, relatively rare, unambiguous {situations | things}.

In the modern coercive context however, even true "emergency mode" leadership is suspect -- how can you tell it from the coercive brand as practiced by, say, Homeland Security or FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency)? As a result, mistakes aren't excused. Spontaneous temporary "leadership" for legitimate emergency situations becomes difficult because the skill-set and knowledge and context of understanding are missing. Our instincts for freedom are on chronic high alert.

"Voluntary" coerced co-operation (slavery, remember) becomes even more the norm -- it's become almost the only choice. For some strange reason, no one co-operates with "Authorities" very well any more. True voluntary co-operation get's buried further and further down the memory hole. People no longer know how to become -- or respond to -- spontaneous temporary leaders. They wouldn't recognize such leadership operating if they experienced it -- it would too closely resemble the now ubiquitous hierarchical intimidation style of leadership that's largely replaced it and justifiably raises our freedom instinct hackles.

How Coercion Corrodes

Suppose a deranged evangelist followed you to church and as the collection plate was passed, held a gun to your head and told you to put $10 in the collection or he would pull the trigger. Would you be a better person because you put the $10 in the plate? If you're a believer, would that $10 in the collection plate at the point of a gun make you more likely to go to heaven? Suppose this gun-to-the-head practice continued for 21 weeks {Maltz's Psycho-cybernetics} and you got in the habit of putting that $10 in the plate every Sunday -- and continued to do so even though the mad evangelist no longer dogged you to do it? Would you then be a better person even though the original coercion that formed your behavior was removed?

This is, incidentally, one way memetic machines are created in peoples' minds.

More importantly, how would this affect you "inside your head?" When you put that $10 in the plate, can you feel good about yourself because "you" did it? Can you ever be truly sure afterwards that "you" are doing it "yourself?" Or is it a "memetic machine," some vestige of that deranged evangelist lodged somewhere in your mind that's causing you to "donate?" Can you ever take unambiguous credit yourself for any donations again - - - with no reservations? Maybe, but the context is poisoned and the absolute certainty that you did it on your own (and why you did it) -- mainly possible only in non-coercive contexts -- is tainted.

Does it make good sense to stop at a stop sign when you're driving? [^^w reference traveling vs. driving here?] When you stop at a stop sign, do you do it because it makes sense to you --- or because not doing so is "against the law" and you're afraid you'll get a ticket or land in jail? Actually attempt to answer that question as it applies to you.

When/how can you be sure, after indulging regularly in such coerced behavior, whether you do what you do under your own volition or if you're still doing it under the auspices of what has become endemic cultural coercion? Do you stop at that stop sign only because it makes sense to you to do so?

Hard to distinguish what your motivation really is for stopping at that sign isn't it? This is a good example of the ambiguity coercion introduces into people subjected to it.

Since corecion in today's cultures is subliminally pervasive, it's hard to focus on or know when, if ever, you're under your own volition. People become alienated from and unsure of their own motivations, that is, alienated and unsure of what causes them to do things, alienated from the essence of themselves from which springs their activities and works. Are you responsible, or did you do "it" at least partly in response to explicit or implicit coercion from someone/something else in our coercive culture? Did "you" do it "yourself" or did you do it at least partly because you were afraid not to?

This situation is exacerbated by "division of labor" since you rarely see a product completely produced by yourself.

Additionally, we lose the capacity to be self-motivated and self-disciplined -- we wait for others to tell us what to do because we no longer know how to tell ourselves what to do. Worse, even when we do tell ourselves what to do, because of the corrosion of coercion, we may not be sure it's really what we want to do. Not being self-motivated, etc., unsure of our motivations, unable to convincingly take response-ability, we come to resemble helpless children and we become a childish culture and nation.

Coercion appears more effective than co-operation, at least in the short run -- "Make your bed. NOW!!" vs. a negotiation. And since co-operation has been poisoned by misdirective language, the co-operative skill set is uncommon, and we don't trust leadership to be situational and temporary any more, co-operation is difficult to come by. What's missing from the equation is the long-term value of having all parties involved in most projects aligned to that project's goals -- and the relative ease at reaching consensus in a group context where the techniques of co-operation are second nature, only those individuals interested are included, and consensus and co-operation are the expected norm.

The problem is that coercion breeds coercion: In modern society, a context where the skills and ethos of co-operation have gone the way of the Dodo bird, and thus coercion appears to be more efficient than any alternatives, the normal way to get people to work together has become coercion. I used to tell my friends, " 'The American Way' has become, 'Do what I say or I'll kick your butt.'" Thus coercion and coercive methods have become the main option on the menu, and this implicit and explicit lack of easy alternatives has allowed coercion -- that is force and threats of force -- to become the norm. As a result, modern societies operate in the aforementioned context of all-pervasive subliminal implied coercion. The carrot has been largely displaced by the stick.

People, driven to the brink, respond in various ways. The most contentious tend to answer even mild requests as if they were demands -- and the most vocal and secure are likely to meet even the most unobtrusive requests with "NO!!" Others find other ways to resist. True co-operation becomes harder and harder to find, and the harder it is to find, the less it's done, etc. It's hard to be sure whether or not this call for co-operation is genuine non-coercive co-operation or the usual call to slavery. And like stopping at the stop sign, how can you be sure of the difference, especially when the co-operation skill set is AWOL?

In a vain attempt to replace what's accomplished thru true co-operation, "society" uses more and more coercion and "coerced co-operation" and "the people" become more and more alienated from themselves and "society" and, lacking co-operative skills, even from their close face-to-face small-group mates. Things generally suck and "the state" morphs into "the police state." Someone writes and produces the movie "The Matrix."

Rehabilitating Cooperation

DEMONSTRATE OUR INSTINCTS FOR FREEDOM TO THE AUDIENCE. "O.K. Everybody stand up. DO IT NOW!!"

EXPLAIN AND DEMONSTRATE NON-COERCIVE CO-OPERATIVE ALTERNATIVES. (Quaker Process and inter-personal conversation, etc.) Examples of the same conversation or negotiation done coercively and then non-coercively.

EXPLAIN/DEMONSTRATE HOW MODERN SOCIETIES HAVE BECOME PREDOMINANTLY COERCIVE.

GIVE ANTHROPOLOGICAL INFO (BOEHM, etc.) SHOWING THE DEGREE OF OUR ANCESTORS' AVERSION TO BEING TOLD WHAT TO DO. POINT OUT THAT WE HAVE THE SAME GENES AS OUR ANCESTORS -- WHICH EXPLAINS YOUR REACTION TO MY INTRODUCTORY COMMAND.

DEMONSTRATE THE AMBIGUITY OF MOTIVATION (HOW COERCION CORRODES) IN COERCIVE CONTEXTS.

DO EXERCISE BASED ON NY LIB. REP. BROS. WHO HAD EVERYONE IMAGINE GOVERNMENT DISAPPEARED FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH AND PEOPLE HAD TO GET EVERYTHING DONE WITHOUT IT. ONLY ONE RULE: NO ONE COULD BE FORCED TO DO ANYTHING. THEY SAID PEOPLE WERE ORIGINALLY BAFFLED BUT AFTER THEY GOT THE HANG OF THINGS, THEY COULD HANDLE IT EASILY.

EXERCISE OR SOMETHING ON REHABILITATING "STANDING ASIDE" AND THE "RIGHT TO BE EXCLUDED." GROUNDWORK LAID IN Chapter 16, Ancestral Democracy & Pizza Politicsconstructive exclusion.

Co-operation at work:

ACKNOWLEDGE THE "LOCAL" CONSTRAINTS: "We're being paid by AT&T to come up with a new marketing plan," etc. (Perhaps a model might be the brainstorming described by lib Columnist Dave Barry when he was working with Dennis Miller for Oscar awards)

Golden rules of co-operation:

1. No one may boss or make demands of others or assert authority -- or imply coercion in any way whatsoever. ALWAYS RULE COERCION, PARTICULARLY SUBLIMINAL COERCION, COMPLETELY OUT OF ANY PROCESS INTENDED TO BE CO-OPERATIVE: Be especially vigilant for any browbeating or subliminal intimidation tactics.

2. Establish POSITIVE, EXPLICIT context of co-operation (to overcome the subliminally coercive cultural context). "Are there any objections that we discuss xxx at this time?" May get "silly" objections -- use them to demonstrate that you're serious about not doing things the group doesn't really want done. Don't take short-cuts!

3. Always remember you're working for consensus not compromise.

4. Don't vote.

5. Everyone has the right to NOT be included. (Individually essential but also important to remember when in "process" of consensus building.) They may "step aside," or, believing that's not in the best interests, may block action.

5a. If action involving the group's assets is blocked by one or several who won't "step aside," the rest may form another group -- without those assets -- and proceed.

6. Everyone has the right to NOT do. If you choose to do without any agreement from others to help, you may stop at any time. (Individually essential but also important to remember when in "process" of consensus building.) Negotiating on basis of doing only if/when enough folks sign-on to project.

7. Don't "wait" -- get agreement on a time and keep your time agreements. Find other things to do if you find your fellow co-operators are not available.

8. Reestablish trust that "your word is your bond." Fulfill ALL comitments you make, no matter how small. Don't make comitments lightly -- REMEMBER, you're bucking the modern fad and have to keep them!

- It will take time to establish the trust that when you say "non-coercive co-operation" you really mean it.

-. Allow those dissenting to opt out

-. There's a difference in co-operating an enterprise in which people have a physical stake that they can't easily opt-out of (usually an established enterprise of some sort) and one in which only current time, etc. assets are temporarily involved.

-. TECHNIQUES: Questions more than answers.

- Do special sub-workshop for women, pointing out that "All the men are captains and all the women are sailors" for psychologically good reasons.

- Trust

- Understanding of transient situational leadership, especially during "emergencies."

- Massive reduction of "spin" and lying in society in general

- Rehabilitate your group's co-operation

- Communication and style is the key

Notes:

[1] Barney Frank, interview with the author [Hedrick Smith], December 11, 1985 return