Principles and Party Lines

At the '94 Gathering of ANN, the discussion around principles was difficult.
I was very pleased that Glen and Robert later produced, from that difficult
and messy process, the coherent and concise list of principles which was
adopted by the '95 Gathering. 

I want to look at the proposal that the principles and/or vision statement
should "be modified to include explicit reference to the ANN's pro-feminist
commitment".

I am against this proposal. Some of my reasons are: 
* Feminism is a very broad movement with great differences in ideology and
approach. It means very different things to different people. A fear of mine
is that if the proposal is adopted (as general support for a broad movement),
it will soon be authoritatively "defined" by one of our ideologues. General
support easily becomes ideology and then orthodoxy.
* The proposal privileges one strand of our diverse heritage of social change
movements - feminism, over other strands such as pacifism, socialism,
environmentalism, anarchism and other influences and traditions. All of these
together contribute to the rich brew out of which we can unite in a common
method of social action - nonviolence. To give one of these, however popular,
a privileged position over all others seems wrong to me. 
* The proposal limits outreach to community groups. Perhaps many members of
ANN move in circles where pro-feminism is the norm. I don't. I try to promote
nonviolence (as a social change/political action method) to individuals and
groups who are mostly anti-feminist (and anti-black, anti-greenie,
anti-political). For me, belonging to a network which has a "pro-feminist
commitment" would make it harder to foster the practice of nonviolence. 
* The proposal is the first step on a road that leads to exclusivity and
"party lines". It begins by excluding non-feminists. Who will be next? Who
else are people in the network afraid of? 

In the 1970's I learnt, from feminist colleagues, a simple and useful tool of
analysis. It involves asking the questions: Who benefits? What are the
benefits? Who pays? and What happens if you change the category?

Who benefits?
I don't know. I could speculate, but the truth is I really don't know. I
would like to know however. Can anyone enlighten me? 

What are the benefits?
Again, I don't know. Could one of those proposing this change tell me what
benefits it would bring and to whom it would bring them? 

Who pays?
Here I am a little clearer. I, for one, would pay, by being excluded from the
ANN. I am neither feminist nor pro-feminist and cannot, in conscience, make
any pro-feminist commitment. There may be other non-feminists who also would
be excluded. Possibly there are others who do not wish to belong to an
organisation that insists on a fashionable ideology not necessary to its
broader purpose.

Possibly ANN would pay, by not having such unfashionable members. 

Changing categories
What happens if, instead of feminism we use "aboriginal sovereignty" or
"vegetarianism" or "anarchism"? How would they sound? Should we modify the
principles to include explicit reference to ANNs pro-vegetarian commitment?
What would the implications be?

I thought, probably naively, that the idea of using principles was to avoid
political orthodoxy and party lines in the ANN and to be as inclusive as
possible without violating the fundamentals of nonviolence. This proposed
change is the first step down the road to exclusivity and I don't understand
why we should take it. 

It is easily demonstrable that one doesn't need to be committed to
nonviolence to be a feminist, and one doesn't need to be a feminist to be
committed to nonviolence. So, could those who wish to make this change please
explain WHY it should be made. Why should feminism be included in the
principles of a network devoted to nonviolence? Who benefits?

I think that the ANN should stick to the broad inclusive idea and keep the
principles relevant to nonviolence only. Whatever happens with the ANN, I
will continue to foster nonviolence amongst people, whatever their political
positions or ideologies. 
Kevin Thommason