Why consensus? Prefiguration in three activist eras
Author(s) / Creator(s)
Polletta, Francesca
Hoban, Katt
Abstract / Description
Activists have long justified their egalitarian organizational forms in prefigurative terms. Making decisions by consensus, decentralizing organization, and rotating leadership serves to model the radically democratic society that activists hope to bring into being. Our comparison of consensus-based decision-making in three historical periods, however, shows that activists have understood the purposes of prefiguration in very different ways. Whereas radical pacifists in the 1940s saw their cooperative organizations as sustaining movement stalwarts in a period of political repression, new left activists in the 1960s imagined that their radically democratic practices would be adopted by ever-widening circles. Along with the political conditions in which they have operated, activists’ distinctive understandings of equality have also shaped the way they have made decisions. Our interviews with 30 leftist activists today reveal a view of decision-making as a place to work through inequalities that are informal, unacknowledged, and pervasive.
Keyword(s)
prefiguration consensus decision-making participatory decision-making social movements horizontalism activismPersistent Identifier
Date of first publication
2016-05-24
Journal title
Journal of Social and Political Psychology
Volume
4
Issue
1
Page numbers
286–301
Publisher
PsychOpen GOLD
Publication status
publishedVersion
Review status
peerReviewed
Is version of
Citation
Polletta, F., & Hoban, K. (2016). Why consensus? Prefiguration in three activist eras. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 4(1), 286–301. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v4i1.524
-
jspp.v4i1.524.pdfAdobe PDF - 402.95KBMD5: 3d92bfa7baae4615a992bc51d075062d
-
There are no other versions of this object.
-
Author(s) / Creator(s)Polletta, Francesca
-
Author(s) / Creator(s)Hoban, Katt
-
PsychArchives acquisition timestamp2018-11-26T12:45:06Z
-
Made available on2018-11-26T12:45:06Z
-
Date of first publication2016-05-24
-
Abstract / DescriptionActivists have long justified their egalitarian organizational forms in prefigurative terms. Making decisions by consensus, decentralizing organization, and rotating leadership serves to model the radically democratic society that activists hope to bring into being. Our comparison of consensus-based decision-making in three historical periods, however, shows that activists have understood the purposes of prefiguration in very different ways. Whereas radical pacifists in the 1940s saw their cooperative organizations as sustaining movement stalwarts in a period of political repression, new left activists in the 1960s imagined that their radically democratic practices would be adopted by ever-widening circles. Along with the political conditions in which they have operated, activists’ distinctive understandings of equality have also shaped the way they have made decisions. Our interviews with 30 leftist activists today reveal a view of decision-making as a place to work through inequalities that are informal, unacknowledged, and pervasive.en_US
-
Publication statuspublishedVersion
-
Review statuspeerReviewed
-
CitationPolletta, F., & Hoban, K. (2016). Why consensus? Prefiguration in three activist eras. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 4(1), 286–301. https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v4i1.524en_US
-
ISSN2195-3325
-
Persistent Identifierhttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12034/1401
-
Persistent Identifierhttps://doi.org/10.23668/psycharchives.1752
-
Language of contenteng
-
PublisherPsychOpen GOLD
-
Is version ofhttps://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v4i1.524
-
Keyword(s)prefigurationen_US
-
Keyword(s)consensus decision-makingen_US
-
Keyword(s)participatory decision-makingen_US
-
Keyword(s)social movementsen_US
-
Keyword(s)horizontalismen_US
-
Keyword(s)activismen_US
-
Dewey Decimal Classification number(s)150
-
TitleWhy consensus? Prefiguration in three activist erasen_US
-
DRO typearticle
-
Issue1
-
Journal titleJournal of Social and Political Psychology
-
Page numbers286–301
-
Volume4
-
Visible tag(s)Version of Record