Process training as a placebo

Quite a few people in activist community believe, that training activist with decisionmaking processes is a way to more sustainable and resultative activism.

And at times this is right. Years ago when I was a young activist, I had many inspiring and empowering expreriences in such trainings. However, often I see way too high expectations what comes to usefulness of such trainings, and especially developing a special branch of activism, which concentrates solely on activist trainings, is a waste of time.

Oftentimes, meta-activism may be more attractive than activism itself. In late 1990's there was a huge boom of video and other media-activism, and in some protests you could see just as many peoples with videocameras as activists themselves. And at times, it was the same with some other supportive functions, as there was a huge emphasis on legal support groups and street medics and such. And for sure, all of these were necessary, but no matter how much more rewarding filming protest may be comparing to actual participating to it, it is pointless to priorise supporting roles to the activity itself. And same goes with activist trainings.

In almost any country, activist communities have a big turnover rate, which is a huge cause of frustration to anyone who is around a bit longer while. At times, hopes arise, that a better process would motivate people to be around for a more time.

However, I believe that in most of the cases this hope is in vain. As list of typical reasons of people quitting activism, in a decreasing order of frequency, goes something like this:

1) Lack of results
2) Not feeling of fulfilment
3) Not common activist interests with other activists around
4) Not getting along with other activists around
5) Nobody to do stuff with in the first place
6) Need to work
7) Need to take care of kids
8) Need to study
9) Need to party and have more fun
10) Burn out after getting too involved
11) Lack of process skills

Points 1-10 are pretty much due to objective realities which surround us, it is the least frequent problem which process training may help.

Big turnover rate is (mostly) result of first ten, mostly objective conditions. Of course it would be good, if you could with some effort to have people to stay around a bit more longer while, but if you may reach out to some new, more enthousiastic people with less effort, it obviously makes more sense.

It is pretty much normal to lack results. Many activists are obsessed with success, and they pick up secondary or totally irrelevant issues just in order to gain success. Of course, sometimes it does not make sense to pick up a totally hopeless issue, but chance of success may not be the only criteria of picking up issues. It is always big money and much of the government against you, so one should not have too high expectations.
And with lack of success, for sure there may not be much fulfilment. Obviously, there are plenty of fields in life, which may provide both more personal success, and more personal fulfilment than activism. It is not necessary a tragedy, if someone decides to prefer these other fields. In contrary, propably it is better for him/her. There are already enough bitter and frustrated people around, disappointed with their lives and achievements.

As for point 10, for sure it is bad to burn oneself out, and we should take measures that nobody burns out. But we often have deadlines as well – for example any kind of street action propably has to have a deadline. And when deadline approaches, usually people start disappearing from around you, and it could be at some point, some tasks depend exclusively on you. Then it is a decision – either you do the shit, whatever it takes, or nothing comes out from the project at the first place. Second alternative means, that not only all your efforts are in vain, but you may also hamper any efforts to do whatsoever in your area/context in the future. There are situations, when over-reaching your capacity is the lesser evil.

As for point number 9, I am serious with this, and I do not even have to quote Emma Goldman to make the point. Sometimes you may unite partying, having fun and relaxing with revolution, but oftentimes not. I am sure, that everyone reading this has observed attempts to unite party and protest, which have been all party, no protest. As for me personally, I have seen in my life way much more awesome parties, than awesome or even mediocre protests. So if I ever have to make a choice between these two, I would not think a second.

Even point number 4 is pretty much result of objective conditions. No matter how good process you have, we are different, and sometimes we just do not get along. Getting along with someone does not necessarily sync with political views – you may be best friends with someone with very different opinions, and not get along at all with people, who share your political views and approaches. Of course we may always work on this to some extent, but in the end, I think evolution has encoded us to split at times and to go to different ways. If we all got along and liked each other, we would all still be living in rift walley of Africa.

So sometimes it is nobody's fault, that you just do not get along. But sometimes it is somebodys fault. Because some people just are assholes, and it is very naïve to believe, that no activist is an asshole. If you have been hanging a year or two around, you have most likely already figured out, that activists are not at all better than people in general. Activist is a person who has some ideas and political goals, but this has basically nothing to do if he is a nice person or not. And if we (occasionally) have a sense of community, it is because of (occasionally) shared ideas and goals, not because we are good people or best friends with each other.

Moreover, often the most asshole people are also the most liked and popular. Many people just love to hanging in their self-confident aura. Often the most asshole people are also the most creative. And if you think about it, it makes sense – talent ←> self-confidence <→ assholeness. It is often a good idea to drop assholes from your live, but what are you to decide, with whom other people should be hanging with? Elitist cliques, cults and conspiracies are something what plenty of people desire. As long their little mental jerking circle is not about to take over the planet, why should you care? Let them have that little game, if it makes them more happy.

Even more popular problem with group dynamics than someone being an asshole, is someone being not reliable. Actually, most of the people are not reliable. I do not know why is this – maybe it is upbringing, maybe it is state and capital, or something else. Anyways, being not reliable makes sense – there is little incentive in activist community, or society in general, to be a reliable person.

One alternative is to keep around you only reliable persons. However, it is well likely that you do not find any, and at the end you have to do your shit alone.

Another alternative is to try to encourage people to be better persons. This is obviously something activist training would propose. But does it make a lot of sense?

Upbringing a person is a task, to which parents spend tens and thousands of hours. And still, nobody grows up to be a perfect person. Which are the chances, that you manage to do better that someones parents? Grim at least, if you have not tens of thousans of hours of sparetime. To find a reliable person, you for sure need countless of tries, much patience and many disappointments. Of course, it is not a catastrophe, if someone is not reliable – he may well have some good sides, which may be of use. But if you really need a reliable person, it will almost certainly demand more effort to fix someones defects as a person, than to find someone else.

I could also write on how the proposed “decisionmaking process” itself usually means streamlining of normal human interaction, eliminating any such “inconveniences” as off topic, immediate comments, jokes and jumping from topic to another, which all are undistinguishable from a “natural”, relaxed and friendly conversation atmosphere. People from many cultures consider such “decisionmaking process” highly artificial, alienating and unpleasant, and resist attempts to impose it to them, even when it could be somewhat more “effective”. But that is a whole another topic.

So is there point in process trainings?

For sure, there is always a point in sitting down with your friends and comrades, and spending time without any immediate urge to decide or to realize something. Process training may be just a convenient excuse to spend time together in general, and any perceived use it it may bring, could be rather a result of such placebo effect. It is well possible, that it is rather spending time together what makes dynamics better, not the acquired new “skills”.