What do you think?
Rate this book
Come Hell or High Water: A Handbook on Collective Process Gone Awry
From their experiences working with egalitarian and anarchist organizations, Delina Vannucci and Richard Singer offer a street-level view of how social relationships and power work. Lessons are learned and hindsight is 20/20, and Come Hell or High Water offers readers both in this little gem.
Critical, humorous, and prophetic, this book is a must-read for those new to egalitarian groups as well as for the salty old vet that thinks she's got it all figured out. It's a tough world out there; it's a world that doesn't prepare us for developing social relationships based on trust, caring, and solidarity—as well as a healthy respect for differences. Whether playing a role in an anarchist organization, horizontal social or political group, worker co-op, or trying to incorporate egalitarian processes where they don't already exist, Come Hell or High Water will help keep you focused on the positives and help in avoiding the pitfalls.
Critical, humorous, and prophetic, this book is a must-read for those new to egalitarian groups as well as for the salty old vet that thinks she's got it all figured out. It's a tough world out there; it's a world that doesn't prepare us for developing social relationships based on trust, caring, and solidarity—as well as a healthy respect for differences. Whether playing a role in an anarchist organization, horizontal social or political group, worker co-op, or trying to incorporate egalitarian processes where they don't already exist, Come Hell or High Water will help keep you focused on the positives and help in avoiding the pitfalls.
120 pages, Paperback
First published December 16, 2009
2 people are currently reading
216 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews
April 28, 2010
A few chapters of this book were very useful. The authors focus entirely on sharing decision making power within collectives, and on that topic, have some important comments. I appreciated their insistence on egalitarian decision making regardless of collective members' differing abilities, pressing time conflicts (like jobs, childcare), and knowledge bases. They deconstructed the meritocracy that builds into a lot of collectively organized projects, wherein a few members know how everything works, end up doing all the work, and therefore claim the right to make all the decisions. Transparency, accountability, and clear process. "Vagueness as authoritarianism"-- yes.
That said, in many ways, this is kind of a terrible book. The authors did interviews with members of various collectives as research. But they ignore the most common complaint they encountered: sharing the workload. Their biting criticism on redistributing decision making power comes off pretty disingenuous when they don't offer any advice on sharing responsibilities. On top of that, they focus a lot of needless energy on debunking the attempts of many collectives to privilege the voices of people from marginalized groups, especially when expressing experiences of racism, sexism, or other oppression. Considering that dropping the ball and refusing to do the shit work to make the ideological vision come true has been the prerogative of white people, dudes, and other privileged groups throughout the eternity, you'd think the authors would have made the connection between oppression and uneven burden-sharing. Alas, they make an ok but missing-the point about shy and awkward people not always being able to get their words in edgewise, attempting to discredit the idea that collectives still gotta work on oppressive bullshit, too, and not bothering to recognize the myriad ways collectives are struggling to counter the oppressive societal dynamics they start out with. It makes me wonder what vested power interests the authors have to defend.
I had a similar problem with the chapter on "Due process." The authors come at collectives with bad faith, condemning accountability procedures offhand while failing to understand the ways that collectives are attempting to create new models of restorative justice. For example, they harp a lot on the US constitutional right of an accused person to face their accuser. What they don't mention is that the practice of having a separate accountability group work with an accused person was designed in response to fukd up shit in US court systems that force abuse and rape victims to testify in front of a judge, jury, and the perpetrator, a horrible experience. And the consequences of an accountability process that don't result in healing are not loss of freedom, but loss of association-- being kicked out of an area or group. Yes, that sucks, and yes, we are trying with a lot of might to figure out ways to hold abusive people accountable that don't end up locking them up or kicking them out. Yes, we would love a book that explored that. But don't write off these attempts to create a better world as devious authoritarian plots.
There is so much to be said about the nuances of power dynamics that manifest in collective organizing. This book attempts to say some of it, but does so by dismissing the really obvious oppressions that most of us collective against. All in all, they detract from the conversation instead of adding another layer to it.
[Edited to add: One other minor point that has been bothering me for months: This book has the same title as the Dyson book on structural racism during Hurricane Katrina, [book:Come Hell or High Water: Hurricane Katrina and the Color of Disaster|586517].
That said, in many ways, this is kind of a terrible book. The authors did interviews with members of various collectives as research. But they ignore the most common complaint they encountered: sharing the workload. Their biting criticism on redistributing decision making power comes off pretty disingenuous when they don't offer any advice on sharing responsibilities. On top of that, they focus a lot of needless energy on debunking the attempts of many collectives to privilege the voices of people from marginalized groups, especially when expressing experiences of racism, sexism, or other oppression. Considering that dropping the ball and refusing to do the shit work to make the ideological vision come true has been the prerogative of white people, dudes, and other privileged groups throughout the eternity, you'd think the authors would have made the connection between oppression and uneven burden-sharing. Alas, they make an ok but missing-the point about shy and awkward people not always being able to get their words in edgewise, attempting to discredit the idea that collectives still gotta work on oppressive bullshit, too, and not bothering to recognize the myriad ways collectives are struggling to counter the oppressive societal dynamics they start out with. It makes me wonder what vested power interests the authors have to defend.
I had a similar problem with the chapter on "Due process." The authors come at collectives with bad faith, condemning accountability procedures offhand while failing to understand the ways that collectives are attempting to create new models of restorative justice. For example, they harp a lot on the US constitutional right of an accused person to face their accuser. What they don't mention is that the practice of having a separate accountability group work with an accused person was designed in response to fukd up shit in US court systems that force abuse and rape victims to testify in front of a judge, jury, and the perpetrator, a horrible experience. And the consequences of an accountability process that don't result in healing are not loss of freedom, but loss of association-- being kicked out of an area or group. Yes, that sucks, and yes, we are trying with a lot of might to figure out ways to hold abusive people accountable that don't end up locking them up or kicking them out. Yes, we would love a book that explored that. But don't write off these attempts to create a better world as devious authoritarian plots.
There is so much to be said about the nuances of power dynamics that manifest in collective organizing. This book attempts to say some of it, but does so by dismissing the really obvious oppressions that most of us collective against. All in all, they detract from the conversation instead of adding another layer to it.
[Edited to add: One other minor point that has been bothering me for months: This book has the same title as the Dyson book on structural racism during Hurricane Katrina, [book:Come Hell or High Water: Hurricane Katrina and the Color of Disaster|586517].
August 15, 2012
I thought this book was awesome. It's a very practical intro. I'm not sure what all the other reviewers were expecting. It's pretty clear that it's about collective processes when they break down - it's right in the title! Without having spent overwhelming amounts of time inside collectives, I'd still say I've personally experienced every example covered in the book. It's probably more interesting to those who've been in collectives for a while. It might be a bit meaningless/weird to folks who haven't already seen some of that stuff. It also probably won't be that enjoyable for people who already win at collective.
April 24, 2011
I was tickled recently to find climate camp spent five days trying to reach a consensus over whether to disband. Along with an overdrawn practice to the point of tedium, consensus has hand signals that work in tandem with the process that are, has someone put it, ‘alienating culty s**t’. So after a little grating I was pleased to discover this book was not about consensus but rather the methodology behind egalitarian decision making, democratic and otherwise.
Some people have complained about the pessimistic tone of the book. Its not a ‘How to..’ book, but rather takes up where collectives often get it wrong, from the practical view of two veterans. It’s not earth-shattering (for a better piece see Jo Freeman's Untying the Knot: Feminism,Anarchism and Organisation) but it makes a few keen points in its hundred and twenty odd pages that are worth considering, if not for any reason other than the sheer number of meetings you are likely to attend.
Firstly the book looks at how a good collective operates; the authors want to imbue process as being more central than the result thereof. Think about a parallel like discussion on ‘means and ends’ not on fetishing procedure. Collectives should be a reflection of the collaboration of all parties concerned. Leading on from this, groups need to address dynamics that ensure power imbalances (such as uneven spread of skills and roles) and transparency is maintained to keep the group functioning.
Some of us may recognise the following individual and group trait identifiers; apathy, irregular meetings, lack of consultation, clear acknowledged leadership, not following of due process, personal smears, lack of first hand knowledge, intimidating behaviour, lack of transparency, subversion of collective principles, emotional blackmail, paranoia, egoism, knowledge whoring, deliberate shutting down of debate, employment of straw-men style arguments, not sharing out tasks and pulling rank. These run counter to the egalitarian ethos of any collective and by acknowledging these adversities the authors want to postulate a number of solutions to help collectives get back on track.
Firstly we should not substitute our criticisms of praxis with decency or politeness, “[T]he traditional Anglo-Saxon Protestant niceties such as not saying anything if one doesn’t have anything nice to say, never expressing negative criticism, and rushing to smooth over disagreements are incompatible with working collectively” (page 42-3) Following on from this there are a number of related factors. How do you deal with personal feuds? Persons who have fallen foul of the group? People who don’t ‘gel’?
The authors argue dissent and disagreement should be seen as the wellspring of any group (which I think reflects badly on groups whose only glue is simply measured solely in terms of friendship). Grievances should be aired openly, and along with recognising respect for racial and sexual oppression groups should be lenient on personality traits which can sometimes make group dynamics difficult. The group should not come down as a judge in personal warring and should not attempt to suppress them either. And if group discipline is a factor all manner of sanctions and stripping of rights should be considered before the eject button is finally pushed. I was disappointed and thought this detail lacked an understanding on how sexual abuse would be dealt with if the dispute is one person’s word against another, as unfortunately this is a very real scenario that as cropped up several times.
While authoritarian behaviour can exert itself in cliques of an unstructured group, it can also manifest through anal adherence to procedure. To some extent this goes hand in hand with ‘pulling rank’. The book rightfully points out that egalitarian groups are not meritocracies for ageing revolutionaries and the alleviation for attempts to ‘micromanage’ should come down to affective chairing.
The nightmare of group dynamics can result in nothing short of show trials which can be harrowing for recipients. The books case is that if we want to go beyond this society and create a new one, we have to acknowledge this societies legal safe guards and checks for the accused and seek to better them, rather than concentrate all the functions in a few hands so they can carry out judgement and execution against a foreseen offence. Its on this latter point I thought the book really hit its stride, pushing proactive rather than reactive thinking.
I was disappointed recallable mandates were not discussed at any length in the book, despite my feeling that these are central to anarchism becoming a functioning mass movement but mandated sub-committees seemed to have got a mention. So go figure. All in all this a book with something we should all be able to take something from.
Some people have complained about the pessimistic tone of the book. Its not a ‘How to..’ book, but rather takes up where collectives often get it wrong, from the practical view of two veterans. It’s not earth-shattering (for a better piece see Jo Freeman's Untying the Knot: Feminism,Anarchism and Organisation) but it makes a few keen points in its hundred and twenty odd pages that are worth considering, if not for any reason other than the sheer number of meetings you are likely to attend.
Firstly the book looks at how a good collective operates; the authors want to imbue process as being more central than the result thereof. Think about a parallel like discussion on ‘means and ends’ not on fetishing procedure. Collectives should be a reflection of the collaboration of all parties concerned. Leading on from this, groups need to address dynamics that ensure power imbalances (such as uneven spread of skills and roles) and transparency is maintained to keep the group functioning.
Some of us may recognise the following individual and group trait identifiers; apathy, irregular meetings, lack of consultation, clear acknowledged leadership, not following of due process, personal smears, lack of first hand knowledge, intimidating behaviour, lack of transparency, subversion of collective principles, emotional blackmail, paranoia, egoism, knowledge whoring, deliberate shutting down of debate, employment of straw-men style arguments, not sharing out tasks and pulling rank. These run counter to the egalitarian ethos of any collective and by acknowledging these adversities the authors want to postulate a number of solutions to help collectives get back on track.
Firstly we should not substitute our criticisms of praxis with decency or politeness, “[T]he traditional Anglo-Saxon Protestant niceties such as not saying anything if one doesn’t have anything nice to say, never expressing negative criticism, and rushing to smooth over disagreements are incompatible with working collectively” (page 42-3) Following on from this there are a number of related factors. How do you deal with personal feuds? Persons who have fallen foul of the group? People who don’t ‘gel’?
The authors argue dissent and disagreement should be seen as the wellspring of any group (which I think reflects badly on groups whose only glue is simply measured solely in terms of friendship). Grievances should be aired openly, and along with recognising respect for racial and sexual oppression groups should be lenient on personality traits which can sometimes make group dynamics difficult. The group should not come down as a judge in personal warring and should not attempt to suppress them either. And if group discipline is a factor all manner of sanctions and stripping of rights should be considered before the eject button is finally pushed. I was disappointed and thought this detail lacked an understanding on how sexual abuse would be dealt with if the dispute is one person’s word against another, as unfortunately this is a very real scenario that as cropped up several times.
While authoritarian behaviour can exert itself in cliques of an unstructured group, it can also manifest through anal adherence to procedure. To some extent this goes hand in hand with ‘pulling rank’. The book rightfully points out that egalitarian groups are not meritocracies for ageing revolutionaries and the alleviation for attempts to ‘micromanage’ should come down to affective chairing.
The nightmare of group dynamics can result in nothing short of show trials which can be harrowing for recipients. The books case is that if we want to go beyond this society and create a new one, we have to acknowledge this societies legal safe guards and checks for the accused and seek to better them, rather than concentrate all the functions in a few hands so they can carry out judgement and execution against a foreseen offence. Its on this latter point I thought the book really hit its stride, pushing proactive rather than reactive thinking.
I was disappointed recallable mandates were not discussed at any length in the book, despite my feeling that these are central to anarchism becoming a functioning mass movement but mandated sub-committees seemed to have got a mention. So go figure. All in all this a book with something we should all be able to take something from.
September 14, 2013
Overall this is a pretty solid handbook. It explained a lot of the negative behaviors I have seen in activist scenes and collectives and their interconnectedness, as well as how to possibly deal with these problems.
But I was troubled by what was said about race, gender, and other marginalized group identifications. The authors seem to imply that being accused of an "ism" is on par or worse than being the victim of oppression. For example, the authors say that often accusations of sexism and racism are assumed to be true without due process and this can become character assassination against which the accused can't defend them self. If this actually happens then of course that's a problem. But the reason these accusations are taken at face value in radical communities is because they are dismissed elsewhere. What happens FAR more often, even in radical communities, is the person who brings these kinds of things up (which doesn't happen unless someone has gotten to the end of their rope because of how we are socialized not to take ourselves seriously) will be told that such and such is a good person who would never do anything wrong and let me tell you why that thing isn't actually racist/sexist/whatever and you're overly sensitive. The authors talk about power differentials in terms of things like charisma or seniority but don't acknowledge how social marginalization can play a role in interpersonal relations. They complain about how political correctness is stifling for white dudes (seriously). Thankfully, the authors say that you shouldn't say racist or sexist slurs during meetings but that's not the only way racism and sexism manifests. Also they describe activists who think "that any of us enjoys certain privileges above others for belonging to one particular group based on race, gender, or ethnic origins" as "knee-jerk ideologue(s)." Ugh. If I have to pretend white and male privilege don't exist to be part of your egalitarian collective then count me the fuck out.
So most of the book is good but take those parts with a grain of salt.
But I was troubled by what was said about race, gender, and other marginalized group identifications. The authors seem to imply that being accused of an "ism" is on par or worse than being the victim of oppression. For example, the authors say that often accusations of sexism and racism are assumed to be true without due process and this can become character assassination against which the accused can't defend them self. If this actually happens then of course that's a problem. But the reason these accusations are taken at face value in radical communities is because they are dismissed elsewhere. What happens FAR more often, even in radical communities, is the person who brings these kinds of things up (which doesn't happen unless someone has gotten to the end of their rope because of how we are socialized not to take ourselves seriously) will be told that such and such is a good person who would never do anything wrong and let me tell you why that thing isn't actually racist/sexist/whatever and you're overly sensitive. The authors talk about power differentials in terms of things like charisma or seniority but don't acknowledge how social marginalization can play a role in interpersonal relations. They complain about how political correctness is stifling for white dudes (seriously). Thankfully, the authors say that you shouldn't say racist or sexist slurs during meetings but that's not the only way racism and sexism manifests. Also they describe activists who think "that any of us enjoys certain privileges above others for belonging to one particular group based on race, gender, or ethnic origins" as "knee-jerk ideologue(s)." Ugh. If I have to pretend white and male privilege don't exist to be part of your egalitarian collective then count me the fuck out.
So most of the book is good but take those parts with a grain of salt.
August 14, 2017
I don't know if I can recommend this highly enough. Throughout reading it, I kept thinking "Yes." and "Hell yes!" and "OMG THIS!" -- it is of value for EVERY volunteer organization and virtually all other non-corporate groups but even then, corporate culture could learn a HELL of a lot from this small book.
It took me longer to read than 127 pages maybe should, but that is because virtually every page had something worth underlining and re-reading and sharing. (Also, I kept misplacing the book... ) I will be buying at least one copy of this for myself and I may buy a bulk order a bunch and hand them out as appropriate.
It took me longer to read than 127 pages maybe should, but that is because virtually every page had something worth underlining and re-reading and sharing. (Also, I kept misplacing the book... ) I will be buying at least one copy of this for myself and I may buy a bulk order a bunch and hand them out as appropriate.
February 22, 2025
Fairly useful for identifying interpersonal issues within collectives (arguably common-sense but common-sense also often flies out the window in these groups).
Found the political education somewhat lackluster -- multiple times the writer(s) warn against overt "extreme political correctness" and to not excessively cater to "traditionally oppressed groups" and it gets close to complaining about privileged people being unfairly burdened with self-critique. It never really frames this as moving beyond identity politics, just that "self conscious political correctness" is an interpersonal hindrance. And not so much on what could/should happen if "traditionally oppressed groups" face the same sidelining in a collective as they do in the world. Since so much of the handbook emphasizes not replicating authoritarian structures this seems like a pretty glaring issue that never really gets addressed. Still some helpful tidbits in here, scan with caution.
Found the political education somewhat lackluster -- multiple times the writer(s) warn against overt "extreme political correctness" and to not excessively cater to "traditionally oppressed groups" and it gets close to complaining about privileged people being unfairly burdened with self-critique. It never really frames this as moving beyond identity politics, just that "self conscious political correctness" is an interpersonal hindrance. And not so much on what could/should happen if "traditionally oppressed groups" face the same sidelining in a collective as they do in the world. Since so much of the handbook emphasizes not replicating authoritarian structures this seems like a pretty glaring issue that never really gets addressed. Still some helpful tidbits in here, scan with caution.
January 8, 2018
This is a book on an important topic. We're all so used to coercive and hierarchical organization and operation in organizations that we need to unlearn quite a lot and learn to work together in more cooperative and egalitarian ways.
To that end, this book gives a good amount of guidance. I appreciated the approach that there aren't necessarily hard-and-fast rules, but rather general principles, ever informed by compassion and good, collective discussion. The authors don't shy away from disagreement and make the important point that consensus doesn't mean that everyone agrees--it means that everyone is willing to accept the decision.
I've been in a number of activist organizations and have seen many of these pathologies of power in action, so this book quite resonated with me in that sense. It's in the subtitle of the book, but it really does focus more on these pathologies ("red flags" to watch for) than it does on positive functioning within these groups. Perhaps I need to look elsewhere for that sort of book. Still, this book is a good reminder and warning about the ways (subtle and overt) in which egalitarianism can be eroded and power hoarded by just a few (or one) member of a group.
To that end, this book gives a good amount of guidance. I appreciated the approach that there aren't necessarily hard-and-fast rules, but rather general principles, ever informed by compassion and good, collective discussion. The authors don't shy away from disagreement and make the important point that consensus doesn't mean that everyone agrees--it means that everyone is willing to accept the decision.
I've been in a number of activist organizations and have seen many of these pathologies of power in action, so this book quite resonated with me in that sense. It's in the subtitle of the book, but it really does focus more on these pathologies ("red flags" to watch for) than it does on positive functioning within these groups. Perhaps I need to look elsewhere for that sort of book. Still, this book is a good reminder and warning about the ways (subtle and overt) in which egalitarianism can be eroded and power hoarded by just a few (or one) member of a group.
March 9, 2023
After living in a co-op in which someone embezzled $200,000 worth of money, I became interested in the "what the fuck what wrong," aspect of what I saw and participated in. As someone who has lived in co-ops and collective living situations for eight-ish- years, I was very interested in reading this book. I mostly enjoyed it. It wasn't as practical as I wanted it to be, and I think it was vague at times. But. It still helped me understand the importance of due process, collective groups, banning, conflict/resolution, consensus, transparency, and all of those sorts of necessary components of collectives. Would definitely recommend for someone who was interested in what makes or breaks collectives.
June 15, 2010
Great topic, good organization of the material, amusing little cartoons highlighting different sections of the text. Discussion is a bit shallow in places, but this book is a pretty good intro to the frustrations of collective processes, at least in current usage in the US. (Extra points for the handy pocket size!)
August 14, 2020
This was good/I am already exhausted and over talking about conflicts at meetings.
February 19, 2010
I was really disappointed with this book. It's waaay waaay too negative and comes off like a long rant against something bad that happened to the authors. It really comes off as black and white, where there is good collective members with no hidden intentions and just purity of heart and power-hungry bad collective members.
It also basically just says that everyone's got to deal with each other, and if there's a single person that is driving everyone else crazy, then they have to suck it up and deal with them even if they've tried talking with them.
Please. I've been in a collective for 9 and a half years now, and I tried that for years. I can't emphasize this enough. IT DOESN'T WORK. Instead of that difficult person feeling good, all of the solid people in the group end up leaving if you don't deal with it. You have to try working with them, but if they're really have bad intentions and stress out most other collective members, they have to go. Otherwise, all of the solid people will eventually get tired of dealing with them and then they'll leave. You try to work with them, but you have to know your limits. And eventually, there's a breaking point.
There's way too much negative stuff, and I really wish they had put more positive stuff in here on what works well. It seems like a big shit-talking book on some unknown person or persons.
It starts out okay but ends up diving into drivel... the last few pages talks about how important it is to codify your practices and rules, and have a functioning grievance committee. I agree with those! However, I was so put-off by the rest of the book I had a hard time coming with a good taste in my mouth for it.
Also strange: they said that free speech should take presidence (like saying "fire!" in a crowded movie theater?) in a group, and how you shouldn't take "PC language" concerns into consideration. C'mon. You can, but you gotta deal with the consequences.
Too bad, it's a decent subject.
It also basically just says that everyone's got to deal with each other, and if there's a single person that is driving everyone else crazy, then they have to suck it up and deal with them even if they've tried talking with them.
Please. I've been in a collective for 9 and a half years now, and I tried that for years. I can't emphasize this enough. IT DOESN'T WORK. Instead of that difficult person feeling good, all of the solid people in the group end up leaving if you don't deal with it. You have to try working with them, but if they're really have bad intentions and stress out most other collective members, they have to go. Otherwise, all of the solid people will eventually get tired of dealing with them and then they'll leave. You try to work with them, but you have to know your limits. And eventually, there's a breaking point.
There's way too much negative stuff, and I really wish they had put more positive stuff in here on what works well. It seems like a big shit-talking book on some unknown person or persons.
It starts out okay but ends up diving into drivel... the last few pages talks about how important it is to codify your practices and rules, and have a functioning grievance committee. I agree with those! However, I was so put-off by the rest of the book I had a hard time coming with a good taste in my mouth for it.
Also strange: they said that free speech should take presidence (like saying "fire!" in a crowded movie theater?) in a group, and how you shouldn't take "PC language" concerns into consideration. C'mon. You can, but you gotta deal with the consequences.
Too bad, it's a decent subject.
December 23, 2023
Recalling the classic essay "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" by Jo Freeman (and its rebuke, "The Tyranny of Tyranny"), this nice little handbook documents all the ways that nonhierarchical, collective, and consensus processes can go wrong. Along with, of course, good ideas on resolving the trouble.
Navigating groups in which no one wants to admonish anyone over "rules" can be tricky, especially for newer facilitators committed to avoiding oppressive power structures. This is a great resource to have in your work!
It does have some blind spots, or at least not-fully-explored spots, around things like effective accountability processes and establishing processes that don't mimic the white supremacy and misogyny of the wider society (rather than just griping about bad ways to do it).
Worth reading alongside David Graeber's "Direct Action: An Ethnography" for its exploration of the cultural signifiers and practices in a lot of nonhierarchical group processes.
Navigating groups in which no one wants to admonish anyone over "rules" can be tricky, especially for newer facilitators committed to avoiding oppressive power structures. This is a great resource to have in your work!
It does have some blind spots, or at least not-fully-explored spots, around things like effective accountability processes and establishing processes that don't mimic the white supremacy and misogyny of the wider society (rather than just griping about bad ways to do it).
Worth reading alongside David Graeber's "Direct Action: An Ethnography" for its exploration of the cultural signifiers and practices in a lot of nonhierarchical group processes.
October 10, 2015
There were bleak moments when reading, though the general message was to install the idea of fair and equal treatment, while avoiding potholes of bad human behavior and toxic relationships that can pop up in a collective. I understand egalitarian principles and freedom of speech, as well as the importance to understand where people's problematic language stems from, yet, I don't think it's a problem to make a person remain concerned about whether or not their words will harm others based on gender or race. Surprisingly, this book did not send a strong message for equality in that regard (in fact, it made it appear that people don't want to walk around eggshells with their words too much to avoid being sexist or racist), though it did well to remind us how tactful and political people can accidentally be even when in good nature attempting to be part of an egalitarian environment.
February 6, 2012
Reading this was a mixed pleasure: on one hand, it completely confirmed that the collective I worked at was Le Forked Up and if anyone ever asks why I quit activism, I'll just give them this book instead of going off on a blood pressure enhancing rant; on the other hand it depressed the fork out of me, and has made me realise that I'm not willing to do this activisty group process thing any time soon. In which "any time soon" most likely means "ever again".
I did love the size, the layout, the paper and the font though!
I did love the size, the layout, the paper and the font though!
June 13, 2012
I started this a while ago and set it down. I would have probably been eager to finish it 7+ years ago when I lived in Chicago or Boston and collective, consensus process was brand new. After reading half the book, things get repetitive. This small book is all about bad process, how to recognize it, and perhaps do something about it. Great for folks new to collective/consensus process and certainly interesting for veterans of collective process, but it would have been nice if they had changed tack a little and shown some positive examples. Anyway, it was ok.
June 8, 2015
I really wanted to give it 2.5 stars. It had useful info about where collectives go terribly wrong. But often it came across like a bitching session or payback for one of the authors being pariahs in a collective. And, in trying to point out the problems that can occur when a group overcompensates for historical privilege, they came across like people who pay too little attention to it.
January 1, 2011
Maybe I'm just burnt-out on radicalism, but I found this book so boring that I couldn't get more than halfway through, and I only got that far because I was at work and had nothing better to do. I will echo other people's concerns about this book, as I found that it seems to come from a sorta privileged, do-or-don't, justice-system-reminiscent place. Bad scene.
May 25, 2011
While the book seems to focus only on the negative aspects of collectives and intentional communities, I found it very helpful for putting a collective back on track when our processes and community went completely awry. It walks through ways to ensure that all voices are heard and ways that conflicts can be brought to the surface and resolved so that the collective can move beyond conflict.
May 3, 2021
Offers lot to think about as a relative newcomer to egalitarian spaces, but not super thrilled with the (relative dearth of) analysis of the ways in which historical/current oppression functions in collectives. It's mentioned, but separately there are to-me-iffy takes in the due process and free speech sections that don't seem to adequately take it into account.
May 15, 2014
A mess of a book about the profoundly messy corners of collective process. If nothing else, useful to disabuse anyone of fantasies that their collective will be easy to organize, govern, or even maintain happy relations within.
December 22, 2012
I needed more examples on tactics that worked. I had high hopes but a lot of the stuff just seemed unrealistic.
November 14, 2018
A interesting and very modern take on the pitfalls of egalitarian collectives.
January 31, 2019
Would have liked some more concrete steps forward (the last chapter has some, which are good) or some examples.
All of it feels too abstracted to be very useful, but it’s a good start I suppose.
All of it feels too abstracted to be very useful, but it’s a good start I suppose.
October 24, 2021
This book is great. I bought many copies for people who were going through these issues, and re read the book dozen times myself. Every single time I find new things and I learn new skills.
February 27, 2025
If you're in a collective, and the meetings are getting on your nerves, then you should definitely read this. There's some helpful sort-of checklists scattered around in here, and some suggestions that differ from what I've seen in other works about consent.
I think I would have preffered a novelization of whatever conflict led to the PM Press people leaving AK Press. More gossip, less unanchored theory, you know, clear examples and story-based organizing. I am only half kidding.
I've been struggling with a lot of the kinds of conflicts described here, although in Austria I have only once seen someone be out and out banned, I have often seen groups split or disappear because they couldn't work together anymore. It's so difficult for everyone to recognize their own responsibilities towards the vibes. If more of us read books like this one, it would help a lot.
I think I would have preffered a novelization of whatever conflict led to the PM Press people leaving AK Press. More gossip, less unanchored theory, you know, clear examples and story-based organizing. I am only half kidding.
I've been struggling with a lot of the kinds of conflicts described here, although in Austria I have only once seen someone be out and out banned, I have often seen groups split or disappear because they couldn't work together anymore. It's so difficult for everyone to recognize their own responsibilities towards the vibes. If more of us read books like this one, it would help a lot.
October 22, 2021
Revist after having read it first 10 years ago -- essentialy a fleshed out brainstorm of experiences that is by no means comprehensive or complete -- it raises awareness of various ways collective processes and dynamics can go wrong, not necessarily to solve the sources, but the text can still serve as a an initial guide for when things start to feel off.
March 3, 2014
Must own.
Displaying 1 - 29 of 29 reviews