How do anarchists have interpersonal conflict with each other, and how can we get better at it? We've all seen (or maybe even been a part of) projects de-fanged by the horrible Accountability Process Gone Wrong. Conversely, we've all seen projects implode when avoiding conflict in order to protect the project or its high-status individuals. Community and collective-oriented conflict resolution processes seem to do more harm than good, but what's left?
Some examples that come to mind of conflict in anarchist spaces that look different than the abovel involve personal violence or property destruction (stealing and burning someone's books, cutting someone's hair, punching someone in the face, pouring coffee on someone's merch table). I don't particularly agree with these acts but I like the approach a whole lot more than leveraging an entire community and set of social contracts (or other implicit forms of power) in an attempt to change a person's behavior because someone doesn't like it.
Some other examples include normalizing interpersonal conflict through "cute" exercises such as sitting in a circle and bringing up the conflict that's been on your mind with your friends. The thinking seems to be that talking about conflict is hard, and so practicing it might make us better at it. But what are we getting better at, exactly?
If someone does something that I don't like, what power and authority do I as an anarchist have to compel them to stop? Doesn't the idea of conflict resolution conflict with the idea of free association? Can people just agree not to like each other and have that be that?
What are your thoughts on navigating interpersonal conflict in your own life, and the way that manifests in relation to projects and collective spaces?
What are examples you've seen of conflict going well in anarchist spaces? Or, what are the worst / most ironic examples of conflict resolution you've seen?
How can anarchy make us better at having interpersonal conflict?
Comments
i love this topic but i hate
lumpy (not verified) Mon, 09/16/2024 - 14:54
i love this topic but i hate how anarchists tend to show up to it, especially when forced to talk in generalizations, instead of examples but whatever, i'll still piss on the smelly brick wall, why not? go ahead, call me a cop for suggesting really shitty people should get the boot party, i still don't care and i never will
1st thing is to accurately assess the transgression and not fuck everything else up by making huge assumptions or being a whiny little pearl clutching rad lib dork who can't assess actual danger versus mild emotional discomfort if their stupid, sheltered little life depended on it. DON'T SCREW EVERYTHING UP from the jump and then double down because of your sniveling, anxiety-based ego. it's pathetic. don't do it.
THEN, if the transgression is quite serious, way beyond hurt feelings and can't be addressed by the parties involved just leaving each other the fuck alone, which is MOST CONFLICT btw...
then and ONLY then, might we need to do elaborate accountability rituals or angry vigilante mobs, both of which are fun and worthwhile if you're a sadist who delights in righteous violence and vengeance, but like, with quality control and verifiable data about exactly who did what and the person who was on the receiving end of the transgression actually wants any of this to happen AND they're not a manipulative little aspiring cult leader in their own right
under those exact conditions, which are quite rare and require the highest standards of fact checking first, i've seen some good results. often, it was as simple as a healthy amount of fear and respect being inspired in those who otherwise might not be so inclined. lastly, none of this is necessary for those with which you can just have a reasonable discussion instead, we're talking about the other kind of people... you know the ones, the ones for which every conversation is just another chance to "win" by talking the most
For the most part I think we
anon (not verified) Mon, 09/16/2024 - 15:17
For the most part I think we can just dismiss and ignore project peers who we can't stand.
Realistically I think any project needs to all together agree to keep a council of elected individuals to investigate, or arbitrate disputes. The problem with this is that no matter how much of a collectivist you are, every human being is still an individual with different beliefs and different levels of conviction about those beliefs. Someone is always going to clash, sometimes it really is necessary for two people to just fight something out and get it over with.
what makes you jump to a
anon (not verified) Tue, 09/17/2024 - 06:20
In reply to For the most part I think we by anon (not verified)
what makes you jump to a democratically appointed arbiter? do you think this can be done flexibly without copying governance structures? and why not simply talk it through/act it through 1 on 1? doesn't all conflict fundamentally resolve to the inter-individual level?
I agree with this. One on one
1LitTrashPanda Tue, 09/17/2024 - 13:02
In reply to what makes you jump to a by anon (not verified)
I agree with this. One on one situations are preferred unfortunately some situations can become extreme. Attacking relatives and such.
as long as they're attacking
anon (not verified) Tue, 09/17/2024 - 13:40
In reply to I agree with this. One on one by 1LitTrashPanda
as long as they're attacking with mutual consideration in mind. but i get that oftentimes that's not the goal of one or the other ppl.
To answer your question: I
1LitTrashPanda Fri, 09/20/2024 - 03:38
In reply to as long as they're attacking by anon (not verified)
To answer your question: I jump to arbitration because I personally lack passive ideas. My biggest weakness, and the reason I probably don't run my own organization (Yet) is that I have difficulty building "what comes next." As far as I can think out there's only a few broad ways to deal with something like interpersonal conflict between two anarchists of the same organization. Obviously you could punish one party or the other, but that doesn't fall in line with anarchist principals. You could exhume yourself and fellows from the situation and allow the parties to deal with the conflict themselves, but then what happens when they attack family members or worse, split and start a faction civil war? The most reasonable solution I can come up with is an arbiter with little power other than to (With no bias) say one is right, one is wrong, (Or both are wrong. etc.) and try to diplomatically play the situation. Anarchism, while naturally optimistic has to be open and ready for people to not share that outlook on life.
TOTAL WAR ON NARCISSISTS by
anon (not verified) Mon, 09/16/2024 - 18:50
TOTAL WAR ON NARCISSISTS by individualist Stirnerians. We will not have our sovereignty trivialized by petty selfish dictators!
So down!
anon (not verified) Tue, 09/17/2024 - 10:46
In reply to TOTAL WAR ON NARCISSISTS by by anon (not verified)
Let's set up a Stirnz Vs Jerkz gang warz and eradicate these latter cunts for a while.
Well, the people I have
anon (not verified) Tue, 09/17/2024 - 03:25
Well, the people I have problems with or find grating aren't anarchists. They're radlib academic careerists, or spoiled suburban trust punks, or washed up closet leninists, or communitarian tweakers, or Tumblr trained idpol groomers.
Tell them about your tourism
anon (not verified) Tue, 09/17/2024 - 08:19
In reply to Well, the people I have by anon (not verified)
Tell them about your tourism and refuse to share your dumpster poutines with them, brah!
bring back duels
anon (not verified) Tue, 09/17/2024 - 09:14
bring back duels
"Community and collective
anon (not verified) Tue, 09/17/2024 - 10:44
"Community and collective-oriented conflict resolution processes seem to do more harm than good, but what's left?"
I'm not sure I agree with saying more harm than good here, but to me, the issue is this - do anarchists even have community? I mean, do anarchists share values and / or ethics around things such as "what is conflict? " or "what are our norms for behavior and interaction?" Can anarchists even agree as to when harm has been done or when one person violates another's boundaries?
Because in the examples given in the prompt — (stealing and burning someone's books, cutting someone's hair, punching someone in the face, pouring coffee on someone's merch table) — these are given as ways to do conflict, and yet these seem to be petty authoritarian reactions to not getting one's way. If we don't have some sense of something in common how can we judge transgression? Harm? Violation?
To your last question: yes,
lumpy (not verified) Tue, 09/17/2024 - 11:57
In reply to "Community and collective by anon (not verified)
To your last question: yes, of course we can.
Harm is quite measurable in my experience and if we find ourselves running in circles, struggling to measure it, that's almost always because somebody is distorting reality, making dubious claims of harm or maybe a lack of harm where there clearly is some.
Put another way, harm should be easy to measure and when it seems like it's not, i become more suspicious of the narrative. The opposite instinct, where we throw up our hands and say "what even is harm tho?" is just way too convenient for the abundance of harm in the world (and those dishing it out)
in your comment up top you
anon (not verified) Tue, 09/17/2024 - 17:52
In reply to To your last question: yes, by lumpy (not verified)
in your comment up top you say -
"1st thing is to accurately assess the transgression and not fuck everything else up by making huge assumptions or being a whiny little pearl clutching rad lib dork who can't assess actual danger versus mild emotional discomfort if their stupid, sheltered little life depended on it. DON'T SCREW EVERYTHING UP from the jump and then double down because of your sniveling, anxiety-based ego. it's pathetic. don't do it."
which, i guess, is what you mean by coming to some agreement about what harm / transgression is. it seems though, you want to decide for everyone else what is harm and anything not fitting your definition is whiny pearl clutching from rad lib dorks.
so i think my point stands about how anarchists don't share a common value system as to what constitutes violation.
sure, sometimes, from the outside, one person's claim of harm may look spurious. but I find it difficult to square dismissing that claim out of hand while also holding an anarchist stance, since how tf do I know from the inside what is and has gone on for the other person.
you don't know but
lumpy (not verified) Tue, 09/17/2024 - 18:26
In reply to in your comment up top you by anon (not verified)
you don't know but unfortunately you must decide, to the best of your judgement, in order to act or you can do the post modernism thing and do loops of critical analysis while the world burns and other people (with probably shittier judgement) freely decide and act, based on their own arbitrary decisions
you're pointing out that there's always uncertainty and i respect that but yes, maybe i'm a delusional tyrant or maybe i'm pretty careful when i make these calls, there's no way to know because this is just the internet
but obviously if you don't risk being wrong, you don't act and "decide for everyone else" is kind of a strange way to frame serious conflicts, since there's usually already somebody who "decided" for somebody, which created the conflict, which you're now trying to address
but yeah, none of this makes any sense if you don't start by gathering as much information as possible
I have never done this, but I
anna (not verified) Tue, 09/17/2024 - 13:57
I have never done this, but I would suggest something like Dadaist approach, if everyone in a group talks and finds out they don't have a specific way of handling conflicts or making decisions you can create a jar of names and each time just get one name out and do what that person suggests, this will work during disagreements but more serious conflicts will never pass without talking
Here's a so-called reading
anon (not verified) Tue, 09/17/2024 - 14:58
Here's a so-called reading list related to this so-called topic for your so-called consideration.
https://types.mataroa.blog/blog/call-out-cancel/
CONFLICT BOWL!
anon (not verified) Tue, 09/17/2024 - 20:33
CONFLICT BOWL!
I’m confused why you think
anon (not verified) Thu, 09/19/2024 - 09:08
I’m confused why you think that mob attacks and accountability circles work without involving the “community” or its “norms.” Anarchists have a nearly impossible task in creating utopian communities out of people who were raised in the wide capitalist hell world and are rejecting or dropping out of it in a variety of ways and for various reasons. I think stronger sense of norms and community would be very helpful in preventing conflicts from reaching a certain level because of proactively fostering a social life where expectations are shared and understood (including the consequences of running up against them). Of course, that would mean - for one thing - that people had a shared concept of words like “community,” “anarchism,” etc which is notoriously difficult.
It does make me really sad that over my decades of on/off participation and observation of the anarchist scene, for all the tough talk, it’s a scene that has been far more effective at destroying the lives of people that were trying to be a part of it, who might have been a bit fucked, but were still trying sincerely to be better than they were before, than it has ever done any harm to the so-called true enemies of the cause. It may turn out that SOME of the true enemies are toxic people in our midst but the dynamics with which such people are shoved through the cracks is just so juvenile.
I mean I know we’ve talked about this before on here but some of the loudest lunged people in any lynch mob/accountability process are always people who have done some shit that they’re probably going to get called out for next and they’re only too happy to sacrifice someone else to defer that. The kind of tactics that emerge from the combustion of such dynamics doesn’t matter *in the same way* as those dynamics do, and this is why your question seems backwards to me.
not clear on who you're
lumpy (not verified) Thu, 09/19/2024 - 11:17
In reply to I’m confused why you think by anon (not verified)
not clear on who you're talking to but i'm struck by how your main assertion seems to hang on
"if only people agreed more about [blank] values and norms"
and that doesn't survive much scrutiny, does it? they don't. they never will.
i would suggest conflict is inevitable because people will never share worldviews, nor do i think they should. also, lots of people, including many who call themselves anarchists, instinctively seek power-over dynamics because of trauma or the ugly side of the human condition so ... more inevitable conflict!
as for what "works", we'd need to discuss what the goal is. for example: i don't view accountability as this holistic journey of personal growth, including all the therapy and support that everyone probably needs. that stuff is great but it's also a luxury most of the time.
in the case of people who are "trying sincerely to be better", isn't that the minimum? we're all doing that already. it's strange to start playing the victim too quickly if that person is conceding that they fucked up somehow. but if they were falsely accused, that's different. then it's on the "community" to disavow people who gleefully make false accusations for personal gain.
i usually settle for simply finding out what really happened if possible, then spreading better info so that people don't witch hunt for bad reasons. in rare cases, you might try to run somebody off because they're hanging around, being a predator of some kind but mostly, i try to leave people alone
Tens of millions of people
anon (not verified) Thu, 09/19/2024 - 11:55
In reply to not clear on who you're by lumpy (not verified)
Tens of millions of people all over the world hold the same cultural values at the same time, and act in their daily lives on these values, all on the same page, nullifying your whole argument. Your perception of how it is for everyone seems conditioned by the logic of Western democracy and European supremacism, wherein each individual is made to feel totally separated into their own personal cultural bubble, and each persons life mediated by the status quo according to the preferences of what they do and do not enjoy in that bubble. But they don't want bubbles with communities and extended networks of loved ones. It threatens their fifedom. The argument above fits perfectly into the framework.
you're not actually
lumpy (not verified) Thu, 09/19/2024 - 12:55
In reply to Tens of millions of people by anon (not verified)
you're not actually nullifying arguments, just making assertions of your own ;)
No, you nullified your own
anon (not verified) Thu, 09/19/2024 - 14:36
In reply to you're not actually by lumpy (not verified)
No, you nullified your own argument through your argument and it's lack of experiential applicability. Your non-response, which this non-response is linked from, further demonstrates that.
No ur boTh nullified. Now
anon (not verified) Thu, 09/19/2024 - 14:40
In reply to No, you nullified your own by anon (not verified)
No ur boTh nullified. Now hold hands and kiss
SIGH i wasn't the one making
lumpy (not verified) Thu, 09/19/2024 - 20:52
In reply to No, you nullified your own by anon (not verified)
SIGH i wasn't the one making the argument, wow!
your reading comprehension ...abysmal
The discourse on this site
anon (not verified) Thu, 09/19/2024 - 12:30
In reply to not clear on who you're by lumpy (not verified)
The discourse on this site could really do without the platonism and liberalism.
We're not "all doing that already". It's painfully clear how many of us here aren't.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with admitting you're wrong as quickly as possible. Grappling with the feelings of the involved afterwards is a different, distinct process, which is being conflated above into one. Penitence is empty Christian moralism.
what I meant was, the
lumpy (not verified) Thu, 09/19/2024 - 12:54
In reply to The discourse on this site by anon (not verified)
what I meant was, the hypothetical person "who's sincerely trying to be better" hasn't impressed me because i'm not so easily impressed. it's a minimum standard for which there are no participation trophies from me
i eventually realized you have to state the obvious like this after talking to enough narcissists? it's a bit like when somebody says "sorry" but then gets mad at whoever they're apologizing to within moments of their "apology"
spoiler: they're not sorry at all, they're just making more demands
I feel like the way you’re
anon (not verified) Fri, 09/20/2024 - 18:04
In reply to not clear on who you're by lumpy (not verified)
I feel like the way you’re phrasing this is kind of just making my point, as if EITHER we have people who “know they fucked up” (and deserve zero empathy, because it’s a “luxury” like therapy? Is it not better than not knowing you fucked up?), OR we have people who are “gleefully” lying. I don’t know if you meant this how I’m reading it but it seems kind of on the nose in terms of how carceral and binary your go-to schema of “conflict” is
lol yes, it's pretty clear
lumpy (not verified) Sat, 09/28/2024 - 14:55
In reply to I feel like the way you’re by anon (not verified)
lol yes, it's pretty clear that you "feel" like whatever you read is why you're going to draw the conclusion you were already "feeling". that's probably the only interesting thing about most of what you write, tiny little circles of self serving logic!
the thing is conflict is not
knar (not verified) Thu, 09/19/2024 - 15:26
the thing is conflict is not something outside of relationship in general. in order to do conflict better we need to be doing all aspects of relationship better. and a large part of that is - are we in relationship long term? or only for one action or one project?
if we approach conflict as if we will never encounter the people we are in conflict with again, probably that's not going to go well. but if we know we will have to be in relationship with these people for a long time to come, we no doubt approach things quite differently.
getting good at doing conflict but not getting good at all the other aspects of relationship or community seems like a recipe for only ever having conflict.
but of course, we live in a culture where being able to just up and leave difficult relationships is the norm. i don't think we as anarchists can solve how to do any of this better without also drastically changing the world, and anarchists are not going to do that in isolation.
You say we live in a culture
sparky (not verified) Thu, 09/19/2024 - 22:55
In reply to the thing is conflict is not by knar (not verified)
You say we live in a culture where its the norm to up and leave difficult relationships like its a bad thing. Personally I love to up and leave when shit aint workin out. As much as you think people dip out when things are hard, theres also plenty of people who stay in miserable connections for all sorts of reasons all the time. So which is really the norm?
But I like what you say about working on conflict itself as only one piece of the puzzle of connection. The struggle is that its a whole life project to focus on relationships, and shit like work and school and media sucks up all our time and energy.
i don't disagree with what
knar (not verified) Fri, 09/20/2024 - 08:18
In reply to You say we live in a culture by sparky (not verified)
i don't disagree with what you say here, sparky. staying in abusive situations is not what i mean though. more so i was trying to say there are difficulties we have that could be worked out but these also require the parties involved to make a commitment to working them out. being uncomfortable with someone or even strenuously disagreeing with them, in a project or organization, is more what i was meaning.
that, and i was referring to the situation where abuse has happened but the abuser just moves to a new scene where they are unknown and the cycle of abuse continues.
there are conflicts where we disagree about giant puppets v. molotov cocktails, and there are conflicts where someone breaks their partner's nose. one benefits from longer term engagement the other does not. (painting with a broad brush).
First I would have to have
anon (not verified) Thu, 09/19/2024 - 16:43
First I would have to have friends or anarchists around. Never really been around any long enough to know what's what.
So, not really a concern. All my favorite activities are alone now. People don't do much in person at all anymore unless you live in a walkable city/countryside.
What lefties fail to
GEF (not verified) Fri, 09/20/2024 - 09:03
What lefties fail to recognize is how Everyprole is your closest oppressor and enemy.
What everyone else also fails to recognize is how capitalist society is setting everyone to gang up or form fixed couples for power accumulation, and gangs notoriously don't share power with "losers" or "outsiders". As they're meant by design to *exclude* and *consolidate*.
Invitation-only moist orgies, yeeees. ;)
So Game of Thrones (the books not these awful series directed by two machist privileged assholes) may be the most socially-relevant fiction these days.
The world is going to hell everywhere, with social misery like homelessness and isolation as the pathological negatives of those attaining "success" within affluent social networks.
So-called radical leftists are still failing coming to terms with this social reality. As they're still stuck in badly-outdated narratives about individualism being the roots of all evil and the core principle of capitalism (WRONG).
So there's only the anarchists, potentially, (and then religions as the conservative "alternatives") left with the understanding that the true liberation happens at the borders between the in/out crowds, between the group and the individual, between the member and the person. That's where the interpersonal conflict starts, and ends. Nationalism, racism, gender, religions -pus that ridiculous generationalism now- are just formal institutionalization of these dynamics. Attempts at making the whole larger than the sum of the group's parts.
The only "anarchist future" lies with the abolition of the group, or the blurrying of its frontiers, coz you can't be "till all are free" while maintaing the fences and chains of the social.
Only the anarchists? We're so
anon (not verified) Fri, 09/20/2024 - 09:16
In reply to What lefties fail to by GEF (not verified)
Only the anarchists? We're so fucked.
Well there's plenty of other
anon (not verified) Fri, 09/20/2024 - 11:34
In reply to Only the anarchists? We're so by anon (not verified)
Well there's plenty of other people around as you might witness... But who else is committed at deterritorializing the social enclosures? Not saying of course anarchists are by default, either! Tho the critique of hierarchical relations and their countless divides is something inherent to most anarchist readings and activity I witnessed, so, very consistent at least.
Add new comment