Deciding How to Decide
When embarking on a governance transition, projects are often faced with an unexpected question.
6 posts
When embarking on a governance transition, projects are often faced with an unexpected question.
Every progressive group ought to ask themselves occasionally, "Who are we fighting for? And how do we know what their needs really are?" Self critique, reflection, and open dialogue are vital tactics for organizers, and our work as maintainers of Parsons is no different.
I've posted before about why it's important to delegate decisions to the people impacted by them. For example, Toyota put the power to halt production in the hands of factory floor workers who were better able to see problems as they arose, and the German Army pushed local officers to be decisive in the midst of battle. This is such an effective strategy because factory floor workers and army officers tend to have much better knowledge of the local contexts where problems first arise.
"Nothing about us without us!" is a rallying cry, a catch-phrase with a clear moral imperative: that those impacted by a decision should be involved in making the decision.
This twitter thread is a great example of "minding the gap", that is: doing the necessary improvisational work to complete a task that has only been partially, abstractly specified. I recently learned another term for this: bricolage.
It's easy to complain about "purity politics". It's easy to complain about "neoliberals" and "sellouts". But we live in hard times, and the easy route's not going to get us anywhere.