Swan's Reach
S a t u r n D r a g o n
UTW
Maturity 1
Ten Sights
UCCS
the Chevil Até Project
C3
A3
3C22 Extinction Rebellion NOLA |
|
|
Guiding social change agents and the general populace in consensus building on climate justice through climate crisis direct action for the New Orleans area of the Southwestern Bioregion (ChAPter Three or Teraquista) for the Nearctic Ecozone as part of the Chevil Até Project's Network of Social Reconfigurations,
|
||
SUBJECT: Considerations for Concerts of Alliance Between Social Change Agents Among
the valid interests in alliance building are:
1.
Serving
the interest of inclusion, which is involving as of much of the community as
possible; and
2.
Achieving
the specific intentions being organized and coordinated, which concentrates
on involving those aligned with the specified intentions.
Of
course, many will prefer to achieve the greatest balance of each, which may
be more achievable through frameworks of synergistic concerts of calling and
purpose than through compromising on mutual objectives.
Concerting
is when
Questionnaire
(for assessing the alignments between their social change interests and those
of the goup)
1.
Are
you joining as [direct] members of XRNOLA, as allies in an alliance, or
another form of intended involvement.
2.
Assess
if their understandings of XRNOLA’s purposes align
with the groups’, and how to reach mutual understanding if they do not.
3.
Ask if
they are choosing o become involved in the established committees or in some
other way.
4.
Assess
if there are parts of the goups' (NOLA, global, or otherr) agenda they aren’t willing to contribute to and
how to proceed if this is the case?
Survey (for establishing the formal agreement
that will serve as evaluative criteria for mutal involvement –agreement on mutual involvement that, if breeched, serve
as the initial review in continuing or discontinuing mutual involvement)
1.
What
about involvement in the goup draws your interest?
2.
Are
you committed to the entirety ofthe goups’ agenda? if not, which?
3.
Are
the protocols of involvement with the goup as currently formulated and stated/declared [sufficient] for
you to commit to them. (If not, it’s advised to have
some parameters of what constitutes acceptable abstention or dissent from the
adopted platform and which preclude cohesive mutual involvement or signal
potential conflict).
a.
Ex: A3’s involvement is not likely to include direct action against ecology offenders except in efforts that include clear strategies of reclaiming decisive authority (rather than only influence) in regulating the targeted offenses, but rather in systemic reconfigurations of regulatory systems and offices that effect and enable such reclamation. XRNOLA should critically assess if such declarations are compatible with its designs for participatory involvement and alliance, or if they pose potentially significant conflicts of interest/intention.
o I’ve yet to study enough material on regenerative contexts of intersecting causes to know if this point is considered, but I suspect a dynamic of regenerative culture is proactively, and formally, establishing the aligning linkages of intention and envisioned outcome between allies rather than assuming through surface impressions that they exist.
4.;
If
not, what about them are you hesitant toward or abstaining from?
5.
In
which components of the goup would you most like to be involved?
6.
What
contributions would you bring to involvement with the goup?
7. What needs would you have in reliable involvement?
|
||
|
|
|
