Sociology of the Anarchists - Gozips.uakron.edu - The University of ...

members are rotated overtime to discourage the creation of “experts” and a consolidation
of power. There is no ability to bid for favor since there are no election campaigns or no
ability to influence a “vote” that occurs at random.
In Pateman's (1970) classic study of participatory democracy, she defines classical theory
of “democracy” by way of Dahl: “democracy as polyarchy—the rule of multiple
minorities... Dahl puts forward an argument about the possible dangers inherent in an
increase in participation on the part of the ordinary man” (pp. 8 & 10). This view is
clearly a non-radical vision, although a common one, where those who “understand”
democracy practice it and the masses only validate it. She goes on to summarize the
classical theory and its emphasis voting as the main method of participation, for the
primary purpose of selecting leaders who carryout the process of democracy itself.
This “classical” view is antithetical to the direct democracy Milstein (2000) and
anarchists hearken for.
[D]irectly democratic institutions open a public space in
which everyone, if they so choose, can come together in a
deliberative and decision-making body; a space where
everyone has the opportunity to persuade and be persuaded;
a space where no discussion or decision is ever hidden, and
where it can always be returned for scrutiny, accountability,
or rethinking. (p. ?)
Not surprisingly the word “vote” appears no where in Milstein's article, nor does she
favorably refer to the empowerment of “leaders” on behalf of the people's interests. For
her, direct democracy is a democracy the elevates the rhetoric of “democracy” far and
beyond notions of elections and voting, to a place where individual people are
empowered to set the terms for the debate regarding decisions, not merely picking prepackaged
options at the end of that process.
Manbridge (2003) documents the various meanings of “consensus” in an activist context.
She lists the conditions under which the benefits are high and the costs are low to use
consensus. She also lists the following advantages to using consensus: 1) promoting
unity, 2) increasing commitment, 3) guaranteeing a form of individual liberty, 4)
encouraging listening, 5) teaching transferable skills. She also says that the use of
consensus is not “prefigurative”, which echoes the debates within anarchists circles about
the usage and application of consensus-techniques. Consensus is distinguished from
equality, participatory decentralization, and inclusion—although they often overlap with
the use of consensus. Finally, she explores the many ways that consensus is utilized in
social movements (many of which anarchists have used): “unanimous consensus”,
“Quaker consensus”, “modified consensus”, “consensus through sidepayments”, etc.
Solidarity (cohesion, decentralization)
cohesion: Durkheim, E. (1893/1933); Parsons, T. (1951); Tonnies, F. (1887/1963)
decentralization: Winthrop (year?); Foldvary (2001)
[ Williams 37 ] [ this is a draft. do not cite. ]