Reproduced with permission.
NCSF: “Fighting With Ourselves” A Leadership Guide to Resolving Conflicts in the SM-Leather-Fetish Communities
June 18, 2007
Quotation for the Day
From sixties activist Jerry Rubin, upon being told that he and the rest of the Chicago Seven, on trial for disrupting the 1968 Democratic National Convention, would be charged with conspiracy: “Conspiracy? Hell, we couldn’t agree on lunch!”
These are days when it must seem to the leaders of any SM-Leather-Fetish community organizations that the entire scene lives by those words. And, in fact, it should not be surprising that disagreements and disputes arise more frequently and more heatedly in our communities then in other organizations.
The issues we deal with-particularly those involving our relationship with the “vanilla” world-are difficult ones, problems for which there is unlikely be a single “correct” answer. Moreover, our movement is highly diverse, including gays hets, bisexuals, gays, lesbians, and transgendered individuals; tops, bottoms and people from all sorts of economic , ethnic and social backgrounds. It is hardly surprising that pronounced differences arise, both on the substance of the issues and on tactics for dealing with our various problems.
Nor should it be surprising those views in our communities are intensely felt, or that differences often become heated. Remember that we are dealing with subjects that most of us feel are central to the issue of “Who I am.” Moreover, these questions arise in the context of a broader society that is unsympathetic, even hostile, to our life styles, a fact that inevitably raises the intensity of our debates.
The premise of today’s program is not that differing views, or even hotly contested disputes, are a bad thing. To the contrary, a dynamic organization should make room for divergent opinions, and healthy debate makes the organization more productive in its activities.
But we have all seen in our communities disputes that have gone wrong, that have created serious disruptions and-in extreme cases-have torn organizations apart. In today’s program, we will discuss several case histories of such serious, potentially damaging disputes. Using these case studies, we hope to make leaders in our communities better able to:Understand their group’s membership in a way that enables them to identify issues on which differences of views can become unduly diverse.
Develop methods of learning the nature of a specific dispute and understanding the positions taken by each of the disputing individuals or factions,
Deciding, with respect to a specific dispute, whether to seek a resolution, a compromise, or an agreement to disagree,
Work with the disputing parties to resolve, compromise or otherwise end the dispute,
Find ways to keep the “losing Parties” in a dispute constructively involved in the organization; and,
Assess whether and to what extent it may be useful for the organization to establish one or more institutional devices (mediation, arbitration, etc.) Following is an outline of points for leaders to consider in conflict resolution.
Points for Group Leadership to Consider With Regard to Resolving Internal Conflicts
I. Anticipate Potentially Disruptive Conflicts
A. Know the membership of your organization and the issues on which various elements of your membership may hold intense views.
B. Stay in regular communication with each element of your membership, both to ensure that you’ll know where they are coming from on controversial issues and to build trust.
C. Don’t spring surprises on your membership. Where an issues is likely to be controversial, sound out the views of those elements of your group most likely to have a strong interest.
D. Have a plan. Whether you are initiating an issue or dealing with an issue that arose outside your organization, as a group leader you have a responsibility to make sure that your organization deals with the issue in a constructive manner.
II. When Conflict Develops Over An Issue
A. First and foremost, meet with the opposing sides (separately) and listen. Your job at this point is not to persuade, but to understand their views and impress upon them that you are a vehicle for bridging the gap between them and the opposition.
B. Try to establish the rule that no one is to personalize the issue. (This is not always possible, of course.) Similarly, encourage all sides to try to work out the problem within your organization, not in public and particularly not on the Internet.
C. Make sure that all factions understand the implications of the issue, and of any severely disruptive dispute over the issue, on your organization (as opposed to on the interests or pre-dispositions of the individuals or factions involved in the dispute).
D. Be especially sensitive to whether the dispute is likely to fall out along gender or orientation lines (male vs. female, gay vs. het, top vs. bottom, etc.). Where this has happened or seems likely,
seek ways to reshape the debate, and
accelerate your efforts to expedite a resolution.
E. Above all, make sure that all factions in the dispute clearly understand that the leadership of the organization is actively involved, is sympathetic to (even if it does not agree with) the views of all factions, and is acting in the interests of the organization not in the interest of one faction against another.
III. Resolving the Dispute
A. Resolution can mean various things:
The organization adopts one of the conflicting positions and rejects the other(s),
Some compromise position is adopted, or
The organization decides that the issue is too divisive, and takes no position.
B. Steps that may be useful in reaching a resolution:
A group leader meets separately (and probably repeatedly) with each faction-the “Jimmy Carter” method.
Bring the opposing factions together-the “Marquess of Queensbury Rules” method.
Both factions present their views to the organization as a whole, either a members meeting or a board of directors’ meeting.
Use a mediator (possibly one maintained by your organization on a standing basis-see below).
Have both factions agree to submit the dispute to some mutually acceptable third party, to hear each side’s case and decide.
Declare a “cooling off period” of some agreed upon duration.
C. After resolution of the issue, it is especially critical to pay attention to the needs of the faction whose views did not prevail. Make sure they understand that they had a full opportunity to make their case and that they are clear as to the reasons why the organization did not agree. For bitter disputes, try to find some benefit or face-saving measure for the losing faction.
IV. Institutionalizing a Dispute Resolution Process
Large organizations, particularly those with diverse membership and/or history or serious conflicts, may wish to consider establishing an in-house facility whereby several serious respected members are designated as mediators or arbitrators. For some organizations, internal disputes are required to be taken to such arbitration or mediation, in others, the service is simply available if the factions choose to utilize them.
Copyright March 2000, The National Coalition for Sexual Freedom (NCSF).
NCSF grants permission to reproduce only if reproduced in its entirety and distributed free of charge.
Comentarios