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
