How does horizontalism or non-hierarchical organizing work, and what have we learned from attempts at it?

The following responds to a question received during the learning circle held on 'how to occupy a space to advance your cause'. The contents of this page include insight from academic analyses of the use of horizontality in social movements, movement organizers, and thinkers who developed and expanded upon the concept deep democracy. 

What is horizontality?

"Horizontality refers to the active creation of nonhierarchical relations through decision-making processes. Rather than assuming that equality can be declared or created through a centralized authority that is legitimated to rule by 'the people', movement practices of horizontality rest on the assumption that inequality will always permeate every social interaction. This shift in assumptions results in an acknowledgement that these inequalities always exist and that each person is responsible for continuously challenging these inequalities at every step of a decision-making process." -Marianne Maeckelbergh

As Marianne Maeckelbergh explains horizontal decision-making can be described as an alternative form of global network-based democracy. Its main arguments are: 

1) Equality must be continuously created and worked on. Equality cannot occur naturally, based on existing hierarchies in our society for gender, sex, rase, class, education, skill interpersonal power dynamics, etc.

2) Diversity is the goal of decision making, rather than unity. Diversity support the creation of the best solution that is enforced on everyone.

Differences are used to form solutions as part of the decision-making process. People also have the option to act autonomously. This means that if they don’t agree with a decision taken, they don’t have to join the group as part of it and they can do something else.

History of horizontalism

People making decisions together without any structured hierarchy is not a new concept. The variation of horizontal decision-making seen in many movement spaces today, such as by the Occupy movement in the US, has a history that seems to originate in about the 1960s. During the 1960s, the Left broke from traditional political party structures and moved towards participatory democratic approaches to social change. Notions of participatory democracy started to merge with practices of consensus with the help of the women’s/feminist movements, anti-nuclear and peace movements of the 1970s. Through the 1980s and 1990s, environmental movements kept these decision-making practices active.

The term “horizontalism,” from the Spanish horizontalidad, was first used in Argentina after the 2001 popular rebellion. Argentines, during an economic crisis, went out into the streets by the hundreds of thousands. People banged on pots and pans, and serenaded officials with “Que se vayan todos, que no quede ni uno solo” (“They all must go, not even one should remain”). Protestors forced out five consecutive governments, and in the process, they formed the first neighborhood assemblies grounded in horizontalidad. Movement participants rejected representative democracy and the empowerment of leaders. The spirit of horizontalidad emerged in workplaces and movements of the unemployed, and then into social relationships, where it was seen as a tool to create more participatory spaces for all. Horizontalidad has become a word and expression used throughout the world to describe social movements seeking self-management, autonomy and direct democracy.

Since the 2001 rebellion in Argentina, the Occupy movements that followed created new territories for direct democracy. The intention of Occupy, and the thousands of assemblies that took place under Occupy around the United States, Greece and Spain, was to open spaces for people to voice their concerns and desires in a directly democratic way. Occupy sprung up in response to a growing lack of democracy, and not feeling represented by the governments that say they represent the interests of their citizens. The purpose of Occupy was not to determine “the” path that a particular country should take, but to create the space for conversations where all can participate and determine together what the future should look like. Actions have included the occupation of homes in the United States to prevent evictions and of cash offices in hospitals in Greece so people do not have to pay the cost of health care. Towns and cities across the United States created barter networks and instituted free childcare. The self-organized nature of these initiatives demonstrate attempts at horizontality.

  

Lessons from Occupy on Implementing Horizontality

Marianne Maeckelbergh suggests 3 main challenges arose from Occupy that caused tension, and steered groups away from horizontality:

1) Believing that resources are scarce.

Focus on financial resources and the chase of fame in the Occupy Wall Street movement caused problems. In the anti-summit mobilizations, money was treated as secondary—first the group decided what it wanted to achieve politically, and then the group could see how much money was needed and where it could come from. The idea that you can only act when you have money, suggests money is where power comes from. Lacking financial resources has rarely impeded people from taking action historically. 

In Oakland, political discussions were separated from financial ones. First, a discussion on pros and cons would be had about whether to, and/or how to, take an action. Separate meetings were held to submit proposals to fund the chosen actions, without pro/con discussions.

2) Believing we need to compete to be heard or get what we want.

Treating resources as scarce leads to competition. Diversity is central to the functioning of horizontality. If those participating in the horizontal process perceive their ability to get funds for their activities to be threatened by your request for funds, they will vote against it, rather than thinking about the value of an activity itself. The aim of horizontal decision-making should be to look for ways to make all activities possible with or without funds so that this attitude of competition does not arise.

3) Claiming domains of activity or knowledge as something someone is in privileged position to know or act upon, excluding others.

"A nation-state is a political structure based on the delineation of a geographical area within which everyone must share some aspects of national identity and within which everyone is subject to the same legal rights and responsibilities. This may seem inevitable within a polity, but within a network, there is no clear beginning or end and as a result also no clearly delineated group of people who are subject to the remit of decisions taken—even by the general assembly. Although this can seem ‘out-of-control’ sometimes, this is actually the strength of horizontal decision-making. Networks can multiply and split without creating divisions." -Marianne Maeckelbergh 

Using decentralized networks and general assembies

Decentralized network coalitions allow for multiple, separate groups of people to coordinate with only limited unity of purpose. People align themselves based on different interests or activities, and only come together, often during a forum such as general assemblies, to share what they are doing and to hear about what others are doing. They coordinate their activities when necessary, and for decisions that will affect everyone involved.

General assemblies create dynamic proposals. The meeting structure includes: preparing the proposal before the meeting, presenting the proposal to the large meeting, and reworking the proposal in the working group meetings and smaller 'parallel' meetings. General assemblies are best used in a decentralized way, whereby those involved do not need to approve actions. Instead, there are multiple decision-making bodies.

Even among ‘horizontalists’ there is no consensus on the appropriate manner to organize collectively. Importantly, contextual factors will influence decisions on what decision making bodies to use, and how power differentials and vertical decision making will be dealt with as they inevitably arise. Anarchist activists that participated in the 2011 occupation of Plaça de Catalunya in Barcelona disagreed with the use of general assemblies, stating: "The central assembly functioned to suppress [creativity and initiative taking.] The central assembly did not give rise to one single initiative. What it did, rather, was to grant legitimacy to initiatives worked out in the commissions; but this process must not be portrayed in positive terms. This granting of legitimacy was in fact a robbing of the legitimacy of all the decisions made in the multiple spaces throughout the plaza not incorporated into an official commission" -Anonymous, 2012.

Not an Alternative offers some critique of the use of horizontality in Occupy spaces, explaining that overall, Occupy was never as horizontal as its rhetoric proclaimed. It consisted of groups that had different organizing structures operating together under a common name, and some people had more influence than others.

A horizontal organization, a democratic consensus decision-making process, and the General Assembly as a model of direct democracy have been suggested as key to the movement’s ability to break from hierarchy. Interestingly, most of those involved with Occupy described their experience using these decision-making methods as 'dysfunctional'. It was suggested that participatory democratic processes may fail to provide an alternative to capitalism, as "participation can just as readily function as a vector for dominant ideologies as it can serve as a tool for liberation." -Not an Alternative

Occupy often made the mistake of acting as if power operates exclusively from above, that control comes from centralized, closed authority only. For this reason, there's argument that the general assemblies used in Occupy were ineffective, even when specific working groups were able to use the consensus process effectively. There were no rules for membership. Thus,  there was no mechanism to hold people accountable. Someone who wanted to disrupt the meeting could do so. Trying to achieve consensus with less involved members often resulted in inaction, or the adoption of the least controversial position.

Occupy also made the mistake that those who could not show up in person could not participate. Working people were disadvantaged by the basic structure of the movement. Those who could not attend were not even represented. For those in attendance, the general assemblies did not facilitate brainstorming, the consideration of complex ideas, or the evaluation of action-proposals. Rather, the assemblies were more of a free for all, where participants could voice opinions but these would often get lost as no one was encouraged to speak to one another's points, summarize key thoughts etc.

Occupy Wall Street’s general assembly innovated 'the People’s Mic', involving the crowd repeating a speaker’s words so that people too far from the speaker could hear. This unfortunately invited privilege and censorship, as people close to the mic did not always repeat what was said. Moreover, the People’s Mic propped up people with a certain set of rhetorical skills, enabling them to emerge as unacknowledged leaders.

The way Occupiers wanted decisions to be made (openly and horizontally) did not translate in practice, and thus, endless discussion occurred. Actions were most often organized by independent groups acting in the name of the movement but counter to the movement’s self-proclaimed participatory principles. People were encouraged to act autonomously if they disagreed with the consensus decision, but condemned when they succeeded in not having secured approval in advance.

There are some decisions that shouldn't require the general assemblies consensus to move forward. For example, had groups waited for the general assembly there would have been no Zuccotti encampment left to discuss when eviction was threatened. Organizers behind the scenes jumped into rapid action without wider network approval. This should have been the emphasis of Occupy's general assemblies; to report to the distributed network and uplift, not approve, people's actions.

Not an Alternative argues that "the strength of Occupy comes from a political logic completely counter to the consensus process. Occupiers made the decision to take up the name “Occupy” not because they agreed with it, but because they knew “Occupy” represented something they believed in, something they had already seen at work. When people joined, they were joining not because of a process, but because of an idea. They were committing, in other words, not to talk to one another until they all agreed but to join a struggle together with others with whom they might not necessarily agree."

Digging Deeper: Examining Occupy Montreal

The occupation of Victoria Square, in the financial district of Montreal, took place from 15 October to 25 November 2011. From the very beginning, people participated as individuals rather than members of organizations. This meant Occupy Montreal was not able to achieve a decentralized network, which would have entailed communication and coordination on the part of collective actors that are already constituted (organizations, networks, and coalitions). However, individual involvement fostered a more inclusive dynamic than if people were brought from existing organizations (most were mobilized through social media). Where decentralized networks can be described as ‘networks of networks’, using social media to mobilize generates more ‘crowds of individuals.’ The challenge with not achieving a decentralized network was fragmentation and a lack of sustainability.

Trouble arose when members took it upon themselves to make a major decision for the entire mass. "Members of the media committee of Occupy Montreal held a press conference and announced that they were leaving the camp. The statement had not been discussed at the GA (general assembly), but the media immediately announced the end of the occupation. This situation fostered even more tension and conflict in the GA. The media committee was asked to attend the GA the next day to explain its statement, and the GA decided to continue the occupation regardless of the media committee or pressure from public authorities. But on Friday 25 November at 8am, approximately 300 police carried out the eviction of the camp. A few hours later, there had been 14 arrests and the occupation was over." -Marcos Ancelovici

Occupy Montreal was organized around the general assembly, and a series of working committees that functioned like affinity groups who were accountable to the general assembly. There were committees for facilitation, media, food, philosophy, security, alliances etc. Each committee was relatively autonomous, with information circulating between the assembly and committees. Each committee was not necessarily aware of what other committees were doing, which means the general assembly centralized power and decisions to some extent. Thinking in terms of ‘leading tasks’ allows us to examine the power individuals hold, even when they do not identify themselves or are not identified by others, as leaders. Three sets of leading tasks stand out according to Marcos Ancelovici: assembly facilitation (intra-politics), communication/media (extra-politics), and camp maintenance (infrastructure).

On decision making, each working group should be is free to act autonomously, as long as it does not endanger anyone else. Graeber argues that: "Consensus process only works if it is combined with a principle of radical decentralization. […] It’s always better, if possible, to make decisions in smaller groups: working groups, affinity groups, collectives. […] One should not feel one needs authorization from anyone, even the General Assembly (which is everyone), unless it would be in some way harmful to proceed without. […] As a general rule of thumb: decisions should be made on the smallest scale, the lowest level, possible. Do not ask for higher approval unless there’s a pressing need to. […] what the GA is doing when it approves a working group is empowering it to act in the name of the GA. It’s basically a form of delegation."

Horizontalism is an ongoing process of trial and error. Balancing inclusion and encouraging autonomous action, building trust, identifying power and how to share it and overall avoiding replicating the vertical structures of decision making we're socialized into will take many more failed and successful attempts to master. Ultimately, any attempt to build non-hierarcheal, inclusive structures that meet one another's needs outside of the state is a welcomed opportunity for learning.

What is deep democracy?

Arnold Mindell coined the concept of Deep Democracy. It is defined as an attitude and a principle.

Attitude: "Deep Democracy is an attitude that focuses on the awareness of voices that are both central and marginal. This type of awareness can be focused on groups, organizations, one’s own inner experiences, people in conflict, etc. Allowing oneself to take seriously seemingly unimportant events and feelings can often bring unexpected solutions to both group and inner conflicts." -The International Association of Practitioners of Process Oriented Psychology

Principle: "Unlike 'classical' democracy, which focuses on majority rule, Deep Democracy suggests that all voices, states of awareness, and frameworks of reality are important. Deep Democracy also suggests that the information carried within these voices, awarenesses, and frameworks are all needed to understand the complete process of the system. The meaning of this information appears, when the various frameworks and voices are relating to each other. Deep Democracy is a process of relationship, not a state-oriented still picture, or a set of policies."  -The International Association of Practitioners of Process Oriented Psychology

The Lewis Method of Deep Democracy

This method aims to work with the rational and emotional aspects of decision-making processes. It was developed by Myrna and Greg Lewis, psychologists asked by one of South Africa’s main electricity companies to transform a department with a racist hierarchy to a department where people work together on an equal level. 

The Lewis method of Deep Democracy has five steps  :

1. Collect all perspectives (even those opposing your own)
   
2. Actively look for the alternative voices (does anybody think something completely different?)
   
3. Spread the alternative (who shares this opinion?)
   
4. Add the wisdom of the minority to the decision of the majority (what do you need to go along with the decision of the majority?)
   
5. Dive into the unconscious

Deep Democracy welcomes differences in opinion and seeks out divergent opinions by embracing 'no.' It aims to give people tools for tough conversations and to achieve resolution.

Three levels of deep democracy

According to deep democracy, there are 3 levels and dimensions of experience.

Consensus reality level

• This is defined by the real people and issues involved in a situation. Most groups address this when working to resolve a conflict.
• This level includes facts, history, money, legal issues, vision, power-related issues (rank).

Rank is the power someone has over another. There are several categories of rank; social, psychological, contextual and spiritual rank.

• Social rank; relates to power in society (race, economic class, sexual orientation etc.; your intersectional identities)
• Psychological rank; relates to feeling centered inside oneself even in the midst of difficult situation. People with psychological rank can help with problem solving and facilitating problem solving. But without awareness, they can make people feel put down or 'disturbed'
• Contextual rank; related to given situation or context. I.e. a boss has power over their employees.
• Spiritual rank; related to feeling connected to a greater source. High spiritual rank can bring wisdom and eldership to interactions. 

Dreamland level

• This is defined by background feelings, atmosphere and 'roles.' This level includes what goes unnoticed, such as beliefs or dreams
• Deep democracy uses the concept of 'fields' to suggest a group of people have influence on one another; that is, an atmosphere is created. We sense them, but rarely notice them. For example, you might describe a meeting as tense, or as inviting.
• Fields consist of what deep democracy refers to as 'roles.' When in a field, we tend to get pulled into roles. At the consensus level, roles might look like, a person who is angry and a person who feels hurt. At the dreamland level, these roles don't just belong to those 2 people. Everyone shares them within the field to some degree. Others can recognize the feelings of both persons, because they've shared these experiences.
• We can switch roles, and as facilitators, we should encourage this. Facilitators would start by asking participants to identify the roles that are present. A group can discuss, for example, how we feel in the role of being hurt, and the role of being put down. Others in the room might take the role of feeling uncomfortable witnessing conflict. The dreamland level helps everyone to bring unconscious empathizing to the surface.
• Facilitating role switching is helpful to make for a more fluid field and support new resolutions. As people role switch, people can more deeply understand the situation at hand. It also helps to deepen relationships within the group.
• 'Ghost roles' are defined in deep democracy as things people talk about in a group, but no one is directly representing in the moment. I.e. 'banks vs the people,' the ghost role is the bank CEO. It can be helpful to try to represent these roles. In the previous example, this could provide insight as to the types of strategies the bank CEO might use, or the arguments used to delegitimize the campaign. 

Essence level

• This is defined as the common direction behind the community or group. This level includes power, and the background field moving the group, otherwise known as common ground. This can also be called the 'process mind' that connects us.
• The essence level can be understood using the Japanese concept 'Ma':  This is translated as the space between parts that gives shape to the whole. When we touch 'Ma' or the field, we sense unity. The essence level is the combination of the parts found in the consensus and dreamland levels.
• As facilitators, we must have a perspective that we are all connected on this earth under one system. When facilitators are in touch with the process mind, they can sense that this universal field has a great deal of wisdom. It is the intelligence of the universe.
• Deep democracy described the concept of 'earth spots' which can help bring perspective.  Earth spots are simply a place outside that you love. I.e. a spot on the coast of the ocean may bring perspectives such as; easygoing, flowing energy. And quick, powerful energy of waves crashing against the rocks. These are both human experiences and experiences found in nature. Earth spots help us identify and understand these different energies. We can imagine our earth spot moves us between one energy and the other, activating the process mind. An earth spot can be any place that you love; you'll notice these different energies anywhere.
• As a facilitator, we may identify the energy of ourselves, and of the group, using the process mind. For example, a facilitator might take on a 'boss' type energy; firm, and more rigid. The rest of the group may have a more flexible, moving energy. Using an earth spot, such as a mountain range, the mountains may represent the more rigid energy, and the clouds above represent the rest of the group. The process mind can help us to explore how these energies flow. We can recognize these energies don't conflict; they're 2 energies in 1 field. Perhaps the rigid energy, the mountains, feel they need to be appreciated for the work they've done more. Perhaps the other group members, the clouds, feel they want more freedom to choose their direction.
• Deep democracy describes the concept of 'spacetime dreaming,' which can help us to let go of the uptight feelings that come with facilitation. It helps us bring perspective to the group dynamics, and the bigger picture. Think about how a leaf flows through the air when falling, spinning spontaneously, letting the wind take it where it needs to. Spacetime dreaming takes practice, but it's about imagining the universe and its parts are moving you about. It's a kind of meditation. It should help to simply notice the different energies in the group; none being good or bad, just noticing them as one flow.
• Dreaming is critical for group work. We can use dance, music, art... to dream our way into visioning something better, together.