| |
Review
previous electronic activism
campaigns and home pages
Affinity
Groups
Please also visit
the resource on Direct
Action
Ingredients
- A circle
of friends
- Some Courage
- Trust
- Action!
- Consensus
- Discussion
- Secrecy
- Structures
for Responding to Unexpected Scenarios
- A Good Idea
- Plans for
Different Scenarios
Plan A is
backed up by the rest of the alphabet.
Chances are,
even if you have never been involved in direct action before that
you are already party of an affinity group - the structure proven
most effective for guerrilla activities of all kinds. An affinity
group is a circle of friends who, knowing each other’s strengths,
weaknesses, and backgrounds, and having already established a common
language and healthy internal dynamics, set out to accomplish a
goal or series of goals.
An affinity
group is not a permanent arrangement, but a structure of convenience,
ever mutable, assembled from the pool of interested and trusted
people for the duration of a given project. Once assembled, this
group may choose to be “closed,” if security dictates:
that is, whatever goes on within the group is never spoken of outside
it, even after all its activities are long completed. A particular
team can act together over and over as an affinity group, but the
members can also participate in other affinity groups, break up
into smaller affinity groups, and act outside the affinity group
structure.
The size of
an affinity group can range from two to, say, fifteen individuals,
depending on the action in question; but no group should be so numerous
that an informal conversation about pressing matters is impossible.
You can always split up into two or more groups, if there are enough
of you. In actions that require driving, the easiest system is to
have one affinity group to each vehicle.
Affinity groups
can be practically invincible. They cannot be infiltrated, because
all members share history and intimacy with each other, and no one
outside the group need be informed of their plans or activities.
They are more efficient than the most professional military force:
they are free to adapt to any situation; they need not pass their
decisions through any complicated process of ratification; all individuals
can act and react instantly without waiting for orders, yet with
a clear idea of what to expect from one another. The mutual admiration
and inspiration on which they are founded make them very difficult
to demoralize. In stark contrast to capitalist, fascist, and communist
structures, they function without any need for hierarchy or coercion:
participation in an affinity group can be fun as well as effective.
Most important of all, they are motivated by shared desire and loyalty,
rather than profit, duty, or any other compensation or abstraction.
Affinity groups
operate on the consensus model: decisions are made collectively,
based on the needs and desires of every individual involved. Democratic
votes, in which the majority get their way and the minority must
hold their tongues, are anathema to affinity groups: If a group
is to function smoothly and hold together, every individual involved
must be satisfied. In advance of any action, the members of a group
establish together what their personal and collective goals are,
what their readiness for risk is (as individuals and as a group),
and what their expectations of each other are. These matters determined,
they formulate a plan.
Since action
situations are always unpredictable and plans rarely come off as
anticipated, an affinity group usually has a dual approach to preparing
for these. On the one hand, plans are made for different scenarios:
If A happens, we’ll inform each other by X means and switch
to plan B; if X means of communication is impossible, we’ll
reconvene at site Z at Q o’clock. On the other hand, structures
are put in place that will be useful even if what happens resembles
none of the imagined scenarios: internal roles are divided up, communication
systems (such as two-way radios, or coded phrases for conveying
secret information or instructions aloud) are established, general
strategies (for maintaining composure, keeping sight of one another
in confusing environments to name some examples) are prepared, emergency
escape routes are charted, legal support is readied in case anyone
gets arrested. After an action, a shrewd affinity group will meet
(again, if necessary, in a secure location) to discuss what went
well, what could have gone better, and what comes next.
An affinity
group answers to itself alone—this is one of its great strengths.
Affinity groups are not burdened by the procedural protocol of other
organisations, the difficulties of reaching accord among strangers
or larger numbers of people, or the limitations of answering to
a body not immediately involved in the action. At the same time,
just as the members of an affinity group strive for consensus with
each other, each affinity group should strive for a similarly considerate
relationship with other individuals and groups - or, at the very
least, to complement others’ approaches wherever possible,
even if these others do not recognise the value of the affinity
group model, and so come to apply it themselves, from seeing it
succeed and from benefiting from that success.
An affinity
group can work together with other affinity groups, in what is sometimes
called a cluster. The cluster formation enables a larger number
of individuals to act with the same advantages a single affinity
group has. If speed or secrecy is called for, representatives of
each group can meet ahead of time, rather than the entirety of all
groups; if co-ordination is of the essence, the groups or representatives
can arrange methods for communicating through the heat of the action.
Over years of collaborating together, different affinity groups
can come to know each other as well as they know themselves, and
become accordingly more comfortable and capable together.
When several
clusters of affinity groups need to co-ordinate especially massive
actions - for a big demonstration, for example - they can hold a
spokescouncil meeting. In this author’s humble experience,
the most effective, constructive spokescouncils are those that limit
themselves to providing a forum in which different affinity groups
and clusters can inform one another (to whatever extent is wise)
of their intentions, rather than seeking to direct activity or dictate
principles for all. Such an unwieldy format is ill suited to lengthy
discussion, let alone debate; and whatever decisions are made, or
limitations imposed, by such a spokescouncil will inevitably fail
to represent the wishes of all involved. The independence and spontaneity
that decentralisation provides are our greatest advantages in combat
with an enemy that has all the other advantages, anyway - why sacrifice
these?
Not only is
the affinity group the best format for getting things done, it’s
practically essential. Without a structure that encourages ideas
to flow into action, without friends with whom to brainstorm and
barnstorm and build up momentum, you are paralysed, cut off from
much of your own potential; with them, you are multiplied by ten,
or ten thousand! “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful,
committed people can change the world,” as Margaret Mead wrote:
“it’s the only thing that ever has.” She was referring,
whether she knew the jargon or not, to affinity groups. If every
individual in every action against the state and status quo participated
as part of a tight-knit, dedicated affinity group, change might
come more quickly.
You don’t
need to find a revolutionary organisation to join to get active
- you and your friends already compromise one! Together you can
change the world. Stop wondering what’s going to happen, or
why nothing’s happening, and start deciding what will happen.
Don’t just show up at the next demonstration, protest, or
day at work in passive spectator mode, waiting to be told what to
do. Get in the habit of trading crazy ideas about what should happen
- and of making those ideas reality!
Let five
people meet who are resolved to the lightning of action rather
than the quiet agony of survival – from that moment, despair
ends and tactics begin.
For affinity
groups and larger structures similarly based on consensus and co-operation
to function, it is essential that everyone involved be able to rely
on each other to come through on their commitments. When a plan
is agreed upon, each individual in a group and each group in a cluster
should choose one or more critical aspects of the preparation and
execution of the plan and offer to bottom line them. Bottom-lining
the supplying of a resource or the completion of a project means
guaranteeing that it will be accomplished somehow, no matter what.
If you are operating the legal hotline for your group during a demonstration,
you owe it to them to handle it even if you get sick; if your group
promises to provide the banners for an action, make sure they’re
ready, even if that means staying up all night the night before
because the rest of your affinity group never showed up. Over time
you’ll learn how to handle crises, and who can be counted
on in them - just as others will learn how much they can count on
you.
Although one
of the rules of thumb for affinity groups is that they should not
be so large as to need formal structures for discussions, larger
meetings - between clusters of affinity groups, for example - may
require them. Be warned: using such protocol unnecessarily will
bog down discussions and alienate participants, and can even foster
needless antagonism and drama. On the other hand, if an assembly
shares good faith in a given approach and works out it’s details
together; such structures can make group decision-making quicker,
easier, and more responsive to the needs and interests of everyone
involved. No system is better than the people who participate in
it; make sure in advance that everyone is comfortable with the format
you use.
In one common
format, the discussion goes around a circle, each person taking
a turn to speak. In another, suited better to larger gatherings,
the group begins by agreeing on a facilitator, an individual who
will help keep the discussion constructive and on topic. Another
individual volunteers to “take stack,” keeping track
of the order in which people raise their hands to speak; if people
feel it is important to make sure different demographics represented
in the group get equal time speaking, this person can take a separate
stack for each, and alternate between them. Next, individual propose
items for the agenda of the discussion, then come to consensus on
an order for these items and, if it is pressing, a time limit for
the discussion of each. During the discussion process, individuals
can ask to respond directly to questions, so the group doesn’t
have to wait until the stack comes around to them to hear their
responses. Individual can also make comments on the process of the
discussion, urging people to focus when they are getting distracted,
or proposing a break so people can stretch their legs and discuss
matters in small groups. When it’s time to make a decision
on an issue, individuals make proposals, propose amendments, and
then address concerns until the group reaches consensus or the closest
thing to it.
Source:
An Anarchist Cookbook: Recipes for Disaster
The
authors’ state:
The publishers, the notorious CrimethInc. Ex-Workers’ Collective,
humbly put this book and all its contents at the disposal of those
who, in good faith, might read, circulate, plagiarise, revise, and
otherwise make use of in the course of making the world a better
place.
NO! Copyright,
2004
|
