The small group can create free space where each individual can question submission and obedience to authority, sex role conditioning, and power relationships. It provides an opportunity for individuals to analyse power and domination from shared experiences, and to develop new skills, new behaviour, non-hierarchical and non-exploitative lifestyles. The small group can empower the individual members.
Small size of the group gives the opportunity for adopting new values based on personal power, but does not guarantee these values will be adopted. Hierarchical organisation can just as easily function in a small group, either through formal or informal structures. Where you find hierarchy in human organisation, you are likely to find a form of domination.
The optimal size for a collective will vary according to the project and the skills of the members. The larger the group gets, the more complicated the decision making process can become, and the more coordination required.
Certainly a collective of up to 10 or 12 under most circumstances, would be quite workable and effective. If members have good conflict resolution and communication skills, larger numbers in a collective should be possible without losing any of the benefits of working collectively, or establishing a hierarchy.
From my own experience I have worked in structured collectives from 2 to 12 people. The collective which had 12 people had a structure which could have encompassed more members. The members of this collective had developed their meeting and conflict resolution skills to a high degree. The collective shared a set of underlying values which ensured an ongoing commitment to the project. I believe this collective had the capacity of from 16 to 20 members without setting up a hierarchy and suffering other disadvantages.
All groups of people have structure, both open and hidden. Structure in small groups determines how information flows and how power is shared. Informal friendship networks tend to spread information inefficiently. In a group where not everyone is in the same network, or especially with new people joining the group, structures such as regular meetings and rostered working together may be necessary to ensure information and tasks are shared equitably.
The extent of structure necessary for sharing power in a small group will depend upon the purpose the group sets itself, and the size of the group. For example, a consciousness raising group may need very little formal structure to engage its purpose, while a collective focused on an ongoing project - such as a newspaper, bookshop, running a refuge, radio program, cafe, etc - will need much more explicit structure to coordinate activity and involve all members in sharing power.
One of the major dangers for collectives is determining the right amount of structure to have. Too little structure and you run into the problems expounded in The Tyranny of Structurelessness. Too much structure will result in problems of bureaucratic power.
To not introduce some explicit structure into the functioning of a group can result in an elite forming, or one dominant person, and the small group will become a 'tyranny of structurelessness'. A tyranny of structurelessness is the absence of explicit structures for sharing power enabling one or more individuals to exercise power over the group. This process is described by Jo Freeman in an essay called The Tyranny of Structurelessness, first published in the context of the feminist movement in 1970. This essay still has a great deal to say to people working in collectives today.
There is a danger in having too much structure in a group, in which some members, through their knowledge of structure, have power over other members who may lack this knowledge. A form of bureaucratic power (or domination) is the result.
Formal structure should have a functional reason for existence and the reason behind and how to use the structure should be understood by all individuals in the group.
Structures should not be seen as fixed and immutable. They should be flexible and responsive to the needs of the group and individual members. The introduction, use, modification, and discarding of explicit structures should be under the control of the group. Democratic structuring within a collective could include any or all of the following basic structures:
Your group could decide to use any or all of the above structures, plus several others which the group may formulate for its own particular needs.
The options for democratic decision making revolve around either a majority system (voting) or consensus decision making. Some collectives use a combination of these systems to suit particular needs. Rules for expulsion, in particular, generally use the majority principle. Quite often in a small group most decisions will be made using an informal consensual approach. Majority voting is also sometimes used as a backup method if consensus fails.
A common mistake small groups sometimes make when they start is in not formulating how they make decisions, and what method to use in what circumstances. This can exacerbate other disputes further on, when the group has no agreed method of resolving conflict.
One of the collectives I was in paid lip service to using consensus, but in reality had no agreed decision making method. Often, when conflicts arose, the decision was made by voting. When a major conflict over organisational practices surfaced, the collective found it had two factions with no agreed method of decision making. The collective was eventually dissolved, and two new collectives started with a division of the resources of the old collective.
The advantage of Majority decision making is it can be used in any size group, and is relatively quick. The disadvantages are that a win/lose mentality can be generated which can cause factions to form. There can also be a lack of commitment to carrying out the decision by the losers. If all the members are not consulted or debate is gagged, decisions can be made which alienate and disempowers members.
Many collectives use this form of decision making for its ease of use. In a small group, there is often adequate debate and consensus reached on best solutions so that a vote is just a ratification of a decision already made.
A compromising attitude is important for proportional outcome decisions to work. This style of decision making will tend to entrench factions in a collective. There is also the danger of the group going in to many directions at once, dissipating energy which could have more usefully been used in implementing one solution made by either majority vote or consensus.
A collective of 10 people take it in turns to cook a weekly public dinner. Seven people argue that all meals should be vegetarian. Three people argue strongly that there should be meat dishes available for those who like to eat meat.
The group may come to a decision that every dinner should adequately cater for vegetarians. Every third week there would also be meat dishes offered, prepared by those people who want this option. Everyone is relatively happy with this compromise solution which tries to reflect the opinions of all members in proportion to their support in the collective.
The method most effective for sharing power when used by small groups is consensus. Consensus decision making is not always an easy process and can sometimes involve a lot of energy, time, and commitment to each other. On the positive side, this method of decision making encourages the participation of all members in formulating all decisions. This builds group cohesion and trust. It also tends to make for better quality decisions.
Using consensus group members learn to practice values of cooperation and respect, to share power and learn skills which foster better communication and relationships on both interpersonal and community levels. Consensus demands that members of the group be more caring, responsible and fair with each other.
For larger groups: consensus decision making can become more difficult to achieve. Not everyone will be interested in every decision, so perhaps some delegation to smaller groups can occur for their discussion and recommendation back to the large group.
There may be times when a consensus decision can not be reached, or is being obstructed by one or two people. In highly committed collectives, these instances do not occur frequently. When they do occur, the group must assess how important the decision is, how strongly the members feel about a majority or minority decision being implemented, and if some agreement can be reached with individual members non participation in the implementation of a decision.
If consensus cannot be reached on many different issues, after all alternatives have been exhausted, this may mean the goals of the group and individuals need to be reassessed. If this is the case, fundamental disagreements may be present and the group may need to disband or members leave the group.
The nature of consensus is based on the non-ownership of ideas. When ideas are owned, the owner assumes they have a monopoly on truth. When these ideas are rejected in part or total by the group, a loss is felt by the individual owner. This typifies a static and dualistic view of reality composed of good versus bad, and right versus wrong solutions, of any change being a loss.
With consensus all ideas, the truth of each member, contributes to the process of finding a solution. It is a dialectical and creative process for problem solving, in which a new view of truth emerges from the conflict of ideas. In this process individuals grow towards a new view of reality where the original problem is seen in a new perspective, and a new group solution can be formulated. This is a process of continuous self development for the individuals and the group.
For consensus to work well you need: