Adam, the only division I can perceive is from those that seem to
wear their political beliefs on their sleeve, and chastise others for
not believing with them quite as stridently. And how can you say
that I prefer not to acknowledge that the completely egalitarian
projects you describe exist? I know that they do, and I'm glad that
they do, so please don't put words in my mouth.
Believe it or not, I would prefer to have no hierarchy. I would like
to just be one of the people at the shop that help make it happen,
but in the case of our particular group it so happens that someone is
needed to keep an eye on things. I'm sorry you don't like that, but
if you can avoid pointing fingers at people then we can all get
along. I simply reported on what it takes to make OUR group happen.
I don't think it's the only way, but just the way it came out for
us. If your group functions with good accountability then kudos to
you. I think your method is admirable, but generally much harder to
make happen.
Our hierarchy is a minimal as it gets. In terms of care-taking I can
only remind the group of things that need doing, or to inquire after
people that have not done what they said they'd do. (How does you
group deal with that?) I certainly can't order anyone around or be
The Boss, as they'd rightly just laugh at me. But our group knows we
need someone in this role, and when I said I'd have to step down
after four years of volunteering if I could not get a little
compensation 14 out of the 15 core people agreed with it (and the
dissenter eventually came on board once his views were accommodated).
We strive to be consensus-driven, and in addition to our core email
list we had informal monthly meetings for many years to set policy
and get our act together.
And I will freely admit that one of our shop's goals is to process as
many bikes as possible, but this is only because we get so many
coming in that if we don't deal with them they just pile up and
overflow our limited space. I have no quotas to fill, and we simply
do our best to respond to the needs of our local cycling community.
Mark
On 26-Nov-07, at 2:27 PM, Adam Weber wrote:
I think Macho has hit the nail on the head in many respects, but I find his attitude toward declarations of the necessity for hierarchy too sympathetic--in particular, accusations such as those so flippantly leveled by Jay Varner and Mark Rehder. Their patronizing attitude of leftist theory vs. praxis is exactly the type of pompousness that breeds coercive hierarchy, the consequences of which stretch well beyond the walls of our bike shops.
Rehder declares simply "good luck" to those who have been working tirelessly, uncompromisingly, and quite effectively on projects that don't depend on the singular power of someone such as himself. The fact is, these projects do exist even if he would prefer not to acknowledge them. Like Macho says, "no hierarchy" is by no means the same as "no accountability" and "no structure".
This thread is hinting at something much deeper than the question of hierarchy. In the end I feel it is a division between those who see the goal of their project as "more bikes on the streets no matter what" and those who feel we are working toward something more, like creating institutions and community spaces that resemble the type of egalitarian society we are trying to build brick by brick. I have found that folks who advocate hierarchy in their shops are much more likely to be of the mind that bikes and bike shops are an end rather than a means to a much greater good. How else can hierarchy be justified by pointing to the filling of higher quotas of bikes and open shop hours? _______________________________________________ Thethinktank mailing list Thethinktank@bikecollectives.org http://lists.bikecollectives.org/listinfo.cgi/thethinktank- bikecollectives.org