Some Personal Impressions

I must admit that I held few expectations for the 1993 national nonviolence
gathering, but I was pleased and excited by the three days of discussion,
clarification, questioning and decisions.  My comments are personal
observations and reflections: I have not attempted to provide a detailed
account of the entire gathering.

I believe that the gathering reflected the recent years of thought,
experiments and debate that have taken place within the broadly defined
network of nonviolent activists.  There was a noticeable lack of
philosophical debate during the organized sessions, which, I think reflected
the commonality of ideals held by many of the participants: a position
reached through previous experiences and discussions.  This in turn reflected
the fact that the majority of participants were Victorian/Melbourne based,
and quite familiar with one an other.  Had there been a greater
representation of other states and bioregions, this may not have been the
case.  Having said all this, any debate lacking in sessions was certainly
made up for during meal breaks!!

Getting Organised
"Getting Organised" emerged quite quickly as the fundamental focus for the
gathering.  However, to do this, it was essential to first look at "what's
happened so far?" and "where are we up to?"  Early sessions allowed us to do
this in three ways.
1. We shared our views and feelings, taking time to listen to the recent
experiences of each activist and allowed each person to identify their
current needs and concerns as members of the nonviolence network.
2. We reviewed the major actions/campaigns which involved nonviolent
activists over the past twelve months, identifying what worked, what didn't
and why: possible improvements and the expectations activists involved in
campaigns may have of the broader network.
3. We evaluated the objectives set during the 1992 gathering, checking for
those that were attempted, those we wish to pursue and those currently too
hard to tackle.

Through this process some major themes emerged, as did an emphasis on setting
limited but attainable goals, and we were on our way to getting organised.

Themes
A sense of belonging
A clear theme was our desire to feel a sense of belonging to a like minded
and supportive community.  Although members of the nonviolence network have a
broad range of interests (from environment to peace, justice to gender
issues) we share a common commitment to nonviolence and are guided by this in
our activism.  Recent experiences and abundant literature suggest that small
groups are an effective and inclusive means of organising, and enhance that
"sense of belonging".  However, we also acknowledged that people enjoy
belonging to a larger movement, or "tribe", and the opportunities for
political development and social interaction that such "tribalism" offers. 
Thus we began to investigate structures that could incorporate this, and
which could also support and challenge people at all stages of the "activist
lifecycle".  Adopting the notion of "elders" was also helpful, incorporating
as it does the roles of teacher and wise person and we began to identify
where we were up to in our own "activist lifecycle".

Learning
We looked at our learning needs recognising that new activists, middle stage
activists and elders will have learning requirements and different skills
from which others may benefit.  Valuing our own skills, and taking advantage
of those of our elders was emphasised and we proceeded to develop strategies
for such skills exchange, including facilitated workshops, a strategic
learning program, activist exchanges and an apprentice/buddy/cobber system.

Accountability
Hand in hand with the notion of clarifying our skills and learning needs came
the issue of accountability, as essential for individual activist development
and the credibility of the nonviolence movement.  So far, as a movement we
have been reticent to challenge one another when we take on more than we can
hope to achieve, and fail to see tasks through.  Thus, "...we need to
discover whether the problem arose because the job was delegated to the wrong
person, or ... because the job itself was badly defined, or whether there are
external factors which mean that the job cannot be done by anyone until the
circumstances have changed... it also means developing... a working
atmosphere in which the admission of personal inadequacy or failure is not
necessary culpable1".

When is an activist an activist?
Recognising that activists participate in and contribute to nonviolence in a
myriad of ways emerged as another theme.  There were those present who were
keen to continue developing strategically applied nonviolence in particular
action campaigns, and to explore the potential of this as a mechanism for
social change.  Others, by inclination and circumstance, preferred to focus
their energies on the development of resources, skills and "organisation". 
And still others felt that they were currently applying principles of
nonviolence in different areas and with other organisations, and believed
that a structure which could provide them with support and feedback would be
valuable.

Network/Outreach/Culture
The three themes from the 1992 gathering continued in strength,with a focus
on the more attainable objectives from "networking" and "outreach", and a
renewed commitment to "culture" as vital for the movement.

Structures
The affinity group model
The model of affinity groups gained momentum over the period of the
gathering, as a structure that could incorporate many of the perceived needs
and themes.  The articulated ideal was that ultimately anyone identifying as
a member of the nonviolence network in Australia would be a member of an
affinity group.  The affinity groups themselves would determine their own
focus (whether issue, action, support, resource or orientation) and the only
overriding principle being a commitment to nonviolence and an identification
with the nonviolence network.  It was envisaged that networking between
affinity groups would occur via some people joining more than one affinity
group (for example, being a member of a nonviolent teachers collective and a
member of a women's affinity group), and by regular information exchanges,
bioregional gatherings and cultural events.  By the end of the gathering we
were still unclear exactly how such a structure would work, but were
committed to the "Let's just start doing it and see what happens approach".

The nonviolence resource centre and network facilitators
Commonground at Seymour was offered as a facility to house a nonviolence
resource centre, and the concept of a facilitated network was pursued.  After
some debate we agreed that two network facilitators should be "employed", one
based at Commonground and one in Melbourne, for one day a week to work on
nonviolence outreach and networking.  The notion of payment was practically
and philosophically awkward, but the final agreement was that members of the
nonviolence network could contribute to the costs involved in facilitating
the network, such as administrative expenses and meet whatever financial
needs of the facilitators that would allow them to spend half to one day per
week on this task. Support and management of the role of facilitators would
be provided by a nonviolence resource steering group, consisting of people
based at Commonground and in Melbourne.

Once again, the exact "how will this work?" was not completely clear but, as
with affinity groups, we agreed to simply begin and review progress and
responses at the 1994 gathering.

Conclusion
The commitment to defining achievable tasks was certainly welcome, and I am
left with a quiet excitement that we are moving forward.  I have attempted to
summarise some of the major themes of the gathering and to give some
background to the emergent structures.

The most heartening outcomes for me included the emphasis on building support
mechanisms into our structures reaffirming that "social change" is social,
cultural, political and spiritual, and that our revolution is more than what
we do: it's how we do it.
Louise Finnegan
Footnote:
1. From Landry, C. ...[et al] What a Way to Run a Railroad: An Analysis of
Radical Failure, London Comedia Publishing Group, 1985 (Pg. 41).