The Cadre-Group Nexus

October 29th, 2007 Posted in Group, Cadre, Cadre Functions

The group does not act. It only exhibits the summary pattern of the actions of its member-agents. In some part this pattern follows intention, and this intention is in the planning, decision, mobilization, coordination, and evaluation that we are calling cadre function.

There are four elements in this model: (1) the plan, (2) the cadre, (3) the agents (4) the members. So in sports we have the strategy-tactics, the manager-coach, and the player-members. In the theater we have the script, the director and the actors. In school we have the curriculum, the teacher-lecturer, and the students. In less established or more contentious situations the model becomes more complex, but we presume that with a clear-eye we can identify and describe the order and process in place.

The relationship of cadre, agents and members is not always benign. There is the distinct possibility of contention on at least four fronts:

(1) Fidelity to task. The cadre or agents could confuse self-interest with the group’s interest–and fall to bribes, excessive salaries and bonuses, assorted scams and fiddles

(2) Competence and willingness to do the job–untrained layabouts, sweetheart contracts, log rolling, no shows, kicking a dead horse.

(3) Congruence of values and goals of cadre, agents and members. It is beyond self-interest–involves differences in ideology, personal allegiance to an outside group. Position could be used to thwart, exploit, mystify, or negate the group for which one supposedly works. Loyalty directed away from membership.

In advertising and propaganda the objectives of an intruding cadre (not actual members of the group) may go against the group’s interest. With criminal syndicates, extortion (threat of force) imposes an abusive and thieving cadre on a group. Teamster union in USA a famous example.

4) Wisdom. A cadre-agent who is naive, insensitive, lacking empathy and balance, not subtle and perceptive in negotiation–phooey, go cadre somewhere else.

We presume a continuing generation of potential cadre and agents so the group always has alternative options. Those in waiting engage in critique of those in action. They also represent excluded interests. Their availability and contentiousness tend to keep the insiders closer to the mark though sometimes the supposed political noise is a charade.

Opposition always has a limit especially for those who pose a challenge to the social order in place.

Let me advance an intuitive argument: The autonomous group emerges where the interior (all participants are group members) cadre and agents ace the test we proposed earlier and where the congruence of values and goals of cadre, agents and members approaches perfection.

So to the question of servant and master. Are the people the master over the cadre-servant or vice versa?

Historically the cadres have the advantage. Even in revolution there is merely the replacement of one dictate for another. Read George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” to see this clearly. So the more interesting issue is the possibility of the world upside-down, the members over the cadres.

The requirements are quite, at the moment, limiting and daunting:

(1) The whole group as cadre and agents as with the Amerindian pow wow. The equal members sit in a circle (approximating face-to-face) and talk in turn or as moved until they reach a consensus of the whole. Decision reached, the co-ordinating cadre and agents are appointed temporarily or are rotated or exercised as opportunity permits and requires–all acting off the agreed text.

(2) For larger dispersed group, the members form into small face-to-face groups where they reach consensus and appoint reps to go to second level face-to-face groups who repeat the process. And so on up to the final small group that supposedly reaches the needed agreement. This is then ratified by going back down the chain. At each level the group supervises and holds the rep to strict account. Organized around housing estates, factories and other work places and agricultural collectives this is the system of political anarchism.

(3) The vote. The great invention, somewhere close to the discovery of the control of fire. Great masses of people gain some modicum of control over cadres. Becomes another conflict front–cadre with control over the agenda, seeks to stretch out the election cycle, construct complex and convoluted rules and procedures while the members increase frequency of votes, set term limits, permit recall and voter initiatives.

Sources within the group reduce need for cadres. Through shared culture, members as agents act in a unified way by simply knowing the tradition. The cycle of holidays, unified responses to known challenges. And especially on moral questions the exemplary behavior of those who live righteous and graceful lives or offer models of craft and commitment.

There are critical moments for groups in a sudden crisis–like hurricane Katrina, or the passengers aboard United Airlines flight 93 on 9/11/01. The established cadres are partially overwhelmed or not present and the group must find the option (the plan and decision) on its own and must cooperate on its own–must find the cadre and agent resource within itself.

Full stop.

_