@Thenomain said in Intersectional MU* Community - Discussion:
there's a lot of implication in your questions and conclusions that a dictator, even a benevolent one, is worse than a quorum.
Not really. It could go either way. In some cases, someone retaining ownership as the final decision maker works really well. There are situations where leaving it to a democracy makes a lot of sense, and others where retaining control as the creator makes a lot of sense, but either way, you simply cannot abstain from choosing, and both choice is interesting in this case.
Take MSB for example. @Arkandel releasing it to some kind of public ownership makes no sense, but what's interesting is that this group is a socio-political movement of sorts based on the importance of such a group to exist to protect people. While Ark has final say on admin level decisions for the space, the decision has been made to let the group decide what it wants itself to be within certain guidelines they feel are reasonable. Ultimately, @Arkandel owns MSB as a space, but does not take the position of leadership/ownership of what is discussed here.
So the choice becomes a philosophical one.
- Does the creator intend to retain sole final vote on all decisions and ultimately decide what the group is or isn't about? Does the owner's definition take higher importance than that of the member? How will the owner behave in a self-appointed role of leadership? If a large number of members feels one way, but the owner of thre space disagrees, then how will the owner react?
In short, on the topic of intersectionality, is it the owner's prerogative to hold final vote on what the group is or isn't about, who can join, who doesn't belong, and if people dont like it they can just leave and create their own? A final say can protect a group from going too far if it loses its way, but can also result in a dictatorship.
OR...
- Does the creator take the approach that a socio-political topic such as intersectionality or a safe space is something that their own opinions or ego shouldn't dominate? Do they take the approach that there is NO leadership and that while ownership of the space itself is singular, the direction of the group as a whole isn't their right to choose?
In short, a person can simply create a space for people to gather without owning the space. The concept of leadership isn't applied and so long as someone feels another person is worthy of joining(example), their own opinions are of less important than that of the whole and in that they may choose to step aside and let the group be what it may.
It's an interesting situation, and all comes down to how the creator views their role in it. Could go good or bad either way with plenty of variables, but how the creator approaches this also tells you something about them.
It's only natural to assume that (like every group based around beliefs: church, politics, activism) differences of opinion, leadership roles, and people wanting things to go the way they think it should go is inevitable. There's no questioning this. This happens.
Best to think about this ahead of time and be prepared to understand the positives and negatives of either approach.