Saturday, May 17, 2008

Fire the Boss and Get to Work!

Coordinators, facilitators, and leaders have a tendency to coordinate, facilitate and lead. Well, therein lies a problem. What do we do when we begin to depend on others to ensure that the difficult work of organizing society gets done? Well, do we depend on others? Please note that I'm playing around with self-evident, rhetorical ideas. That is because I'm curious about the quiet manner in which we slip into roles as we organize for a future where we hope to be more relevant. As a Wobbly, I was attracted to the Industrial Workers of the World because I hoped it would give me more power over my own life. In many ways it did, but it hasn't be given to me by the IWW. In the end, I realize I had to become more self-aware, take risks and I had to get the work done instead of waiting for others to do it for me.

My experience with leadership within grassroots organizations has shown me that a tendency in our society is to be "party" but rarely "participant." The "party" version usually comes in the form of donations. That is because members of grassroots groups often assume the work is going to get done by someone. That is because visible leaders, coordinators, and facilitators emerge to reassure us that someone out there is taking care of business. Perhaps a lack of powerful, identifiable leadership helps explain why the Industrial Workers of the World may seem disorganized. However, the IWW intentionally avoids a monolithic directorate...that is because it's up to us to educate ourselves, organize ourselves, and most importantly, to act for ourselves.

So what do we do to address the lack of historical agency prevalent in our society? Someone's got to bring the ideas forward, right? Or do we wait until people can no longer tolerate the way things are to spring forward with an alternative? It would seem to me that waiting would run a massive risk of inviting reactionary ideas to come to the aid of desperate people. But getting motivated, staying motivated despite constant setbacks and disillusionment, and taking a role doesn't have to be someone else's reality. Can't it be our reality too?

Of course, this doesn't mean acting in an individualistic, self-centered manner, but one that honors and respects one's own interest while appreciating that an injury to one is an injury to all. Therefore, collective harmony will more often than not result in individual harmony. How could it not when one appreciates the inter-dependent nature of life?

Another fear that often prevents us from acting, speaking out, etc. is the fear that we don't know what the best course of action is and we fear the judgments of others. The IWW is often dismissed as an irrelevant response to the problems we face, yet something draws us to it. But it is massively important that we move beyond an intuitive sense that the IWW is offering something unique, or something that sounds ideal, and actually study it. We should know what the IWW is trying to do. We should know what the historical basis for its plan is. And, we should agree that, while not perfect, this plan for organizing society is worth our best efforts and continued sacrifice.

Finally, we need to be reassured that the people with whom we are struggling--and taking risks--are people we know and can trust. So working on our personal relationships within our organization becomes tantamount to a genuine, cohesive and solidaritous struggle.

All of that said, we are brought back to the original point of this discussion: what about leaders? I do believe some people sometimes emerge as something we have termed "natural leaders." But why is this? Does this imply that the rest of us are "natural followers"? I'm curious about human history and our limited understanding of human nature. Is it natural for some to lead and others to follow? Or is this the result of thousands of years of human evolution based on the idea that hierarchy is natural? Is there a natural necessity for some to lead and some to follow? Can we imagine and reflect on this concept outside our intuitive reactions to this idea?

I'm not convinced that leadership is natural. And even if it were, is it desirable? Either way, the tasks at hand affect us all and I would think that one would relish the reality that their life is not pre-determined and that one has the opportunity to make their own history and shape their own life and construct their own knowledge. But developing such agency requires taking some risks and realizing that saying we need to work together to accomplish our hopes of a brighter future is much easier than actually picking up the tools and getting to work.

Edward Gibbon, the author of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, once wrote "Augustus was sensible that mankind is governed by names; nor was he deceived in his expectation, that the Senate and people would submit to slavery, provided they were respectfully assured that they still enjoyed their ancient freedom."

I believe one of our amazing unions most fundamental roles is to smash hierarchy! Perhaps even before we talk of tackling capitalism. Of course, we should work on both concomitantly. But I honestly believe capitalism is born from the historical role of domination that springs forth from hierarchy. We must look at our social relationships. We must look at our dominion over nonhuman nature. We must look at our social interactions. We must look at the ease with which we slip into roles that we rarely determine are necessary and ethical.

So let us begin a discussion of the need for each of us to accept our ontological vocation of becoming subjects not subjugated. Let us enjoy the fruits of mutual aid as we become agents in the shaping of our own lives and no longer be the slave objects of the powerful forces to whom we've relinquished our agency. In other words, pick up a machete and start clearing your own path.


Graeme said...

Wonderful advice. I was a Wobbly for over a year until I finally got off my ass and found other like-minded individuals. It is so easy to get into a routine.

"Fire the boss and get to work"

A perfect call to action!

herb said...

Non-hierarchical organization is possible, but first we must confront our conditioning and abandon followership.

Ché Bob said...

Well said Herb! "Followership"! I really like that one. I agree that we can learn to stop following, but it's a hell of a big project.

Graeme, the routine is real threat. The work we all have to do as individuals and as groups is immense, and a routine that keeps us from feeling and experiencing the overwhelming enormity of life is often preferable even if it isn't desirable for human evolution.

Jim Del Duca said...

Hey! We would just like to let everyone know that Bozeman has a Wobbly family, the Del Duca's. I'm working as a structural ironworker (dual carder), Kristin is a therapeutic dance instructor when she has a spare moment from caring for our twin girls, Clotilde and Isadora (future IWWs!).

Please let us know about any happenings. Tel 860-0331

Also, we have to say that we are impressed by the writing and thinking expressed by the folks here. Yea!

Jim & Kristin Del Duca

troutsky said...

It is a challenging historical moment when talk of emancipation only gets you looks of shock and then condescension. Most folks say,"look, I'm free to dance and sing!", not realizing the hegemonic nature of capitalist ideology. They will resist sexism or racism and other hierachical systems but not their own exploitation at the point of production.They understand they are being gouged by profiteers as consumers but not that they are being ripped off as they sell their own labor!

This is a problem with liberalism and "identity politics". Talk of "cultural revolution" tends to make exploitation at the point of production more opaque. "Identity" antagonism is mediated through bureacratic processes (State approved, laws,courts, votes, etc)and resistance is turned safely into "protest".

Ben Schear said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
troutsky said...

The other thing about "leadership" is it's tendency to speed things up, be more efficient, create clarity, etc.
But what are these so called benefits? As Che bob said, lets examine our basic assumptions such as this great value we put on expediency. Aren't these "Fordist" notions developed to speed up production, create more profit, exploit workers more? We all want to "save time" because we are robbed of our own by the bosses.

Democratic processes and non-hierarchical structuring is slow and messy and indeterminate, hence frustrating to us because of our programming. I was talking to a friend who said he admired ant colonies and thought they were highly evolved! So did Mussolini, I suspect.

Jim Del Duca said...

Let's not forget that democratic collectives are also difficult to control. VERY inefficient from the controllers point of view.

Ursa said...

Hello. Matt here: a twin cities wob. I really like the line about the ontological project of becoming subjects not subjugated. It reminds a lot of the parts of Deleuze and Guattari and Foucault that I really like--particularly the stuff about "ethics" as the habits and practices of everyday life out of which our subjectivity emerges. I was also thinking that it might be useful to contextualize the argument within ongoing discussions of feminism and gender politics within the union. Often "natural leaders" end up being "bossy white guys." Anyway, nice post. I really hope to get out to Montana and visit with y'all at some point.

friz said...

Thank you for posting such a great article! I found your website perfect for my needs. It contains wonderful and helpful posts. Keep up the good work!stardoll game
fr9 juegos
io games