<DIV>Hi,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Speaking as someone who has not been down to the Matilda building yet but who has a lot of experience being involved in and thinking about collectives (one of my specialisms is understanding the dynamics of organisations like this), I can offer the following advice, which you can take or leave.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Consensus tends not to be a viable long-term strategy in this kind of organisation (and it is an organisation, however fluid people would like the dynamics to be), primarily because it works on a principle that moves towards the quashing of difference, whether through "reasoned" argument, persuasion. or, in some cases, bullying and/or coercion. Reason is a very moveable feast, as enough histories attest, persuasion is about winning, and bullying/coercion is about the assertion of superiority. 'Consensus' and 'control' are not far removed from each other.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If you are interested in fluidity, then you need to adopt decision-making strategies that speak to that fluidity, appropriate to the specificities of each particular circumstance as it arises. That's really difficult, because it requires a lot of personal investment, and makes it more likely that those with more time are in more of a position to make decisions. This is a very difficult thing for those who like to be in control to surrender to.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Aspirations to the 'complete absence of hierarchy' over time often tends to lead to alternative hierarchies (plenty of evidence out there). Again, aspiring to the 'absence of hierarchy' quashes difference in ways that do not respect that differences over time often lead to certain very helpful (or unhelpful) and emergent hierarchies of personal strengths and responsibilities. Difference doesn't come from nowhere and leads to more differences over time. That's how human beings work. Denying that will lead you to problems.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>All-or-nothing thinking is one unhelpful route here. The likes of the Matilda organisation is likely to attract a number of people who rate pretty high on the rigidity scales. This is a pronounced tendency in most communalist situations. Such personalities are likely to go for the all-or-nothing path when other options are possible. Such attitudes, if allowed to dominate, will over time transform Matilda into the Toxic Other of the original plan.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Any thinking that assumes that certain directions constitute 'contamination of the purity of the cause' tends to be unhelpful in the fostering of a fluid, relational space. Absolutes and absolutism will not help in this situation. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Until you can work out what kinds of thinking you want to (or, more importantly, don't want to) privilege in the Matilda space (instead of assuming that it will work as a free-for-all), you will continue to have deepening problems with regard to the consequences of an open access diversity in which all-or-nothing approaches will tend to become more forceful than more gentle approaches that you might perhaps like to see. Open-access approaches tend to be too utopian to facilitate appropriate relational environments in the long term, despite their initial sparkle. And, as literary scholar John Carey has pointed out, the point about utopia is that real people don't live there.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I would suggest that it will be helpful if you focus on the character of *attitude* that you would like to foster in Matilda, rather than focusing on aims and objectives, inclusions and exclusions (no coincidence, BTW, that the discussion about open access has led to a discussion about inclusions and exclusions). Focusing on less on *what* you are doing in Matilda, and more on *how*. That then allows for a greater diversity and tolerance of people, personalities, and content, and a clearer sense of the kind of atmosphere that you would like to foster there. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Anarchism is a motley bunch of people, personalities, and ways of making sense of the world. Many of so-called anarchist ways of making sense of the world are deeply problematic, deeply conflictive, and deeply oppositional. If, on the other hand, you think that anarchism at heart can be a lived critique of the dynamics of coercion, violence, domination, and oppression, then it is crucial that we learn to identify that much of our own thinking often reinforces many of those dynamics. If you want to live that critique it helps to start with yourself. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I was about to offer some seminars about all this stuff to Matilda before writing this. If anyone is interested, contact me.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>All the best,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Anthony McCann</DIV>
<DIV><A href="http://www.beyondthecommons.org">http://www.beyondthecommons.org</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>