As informed by 12-Step Culture, Quaker Practice and Punk Rock. 

September 25, 2026

Content Warning. Discussion of abuse, IPV, and r*. Much of this paper is abuser/harm-doer/accused centered and empathetic. As of this draft, it has not been reviewed thru a harm reduction lens.

Introduction

Having been raised in Quaker community (officially The Religious Society of Friends), I am a strong believer in the effectiveness of community conflict resolution and restorative process. I am also keenly aware of some of the common short comings there of, even in the best of circumstances. Quakers have been practicing what we now refer to conflict resolution in various forms for a few hundred years now and much of the decision process that leftists champion and practice is modeled on Quaker led social development. It also must be noted that Quaker horizantalism in America is in turn heavily influenced by Lakota and other Indigenous cultures. I do not know if there is a clear thru-line from Quaker conflict resolution process to the current Community Accountability movement, pioneered mostly by women and queer people of color, but there certainly has been cultural exchange. Creative Inventions Toolkit [6] talks for example about “clearness”, a Quaker concept.

At some point in my adolescence, I dropped out of the Quaker community and started going to Alcoholics Anonymous for my recreational socializing instead, and I think there are a couple lessons leftists could learn from that community as well. The 12-Step community generally consists of self-proclaimed emotionally unstable addicts in various stages of recovery, career criminals, anti-social narcissists, abusers, abuse survivors, many people that are both and everyone is suffering some level trauma.  Even with complicating demographics like the contingent that are only their for court slips, and folks who are actively going through unsupervised withdrawal, there is relatively little drama. When there it is generally contained. In the extremely rare case conflict do get so out of hand that a meeting or social groups collapse, there is a broader community to absorb everyone. Anons being banned from a meeting is an extreme measure and full blown ostricization from the community is basically unheard of. The social unraveling to the extent that can and does occur in leftist communities as a result of conflict management failure is frankly inconceivable in a healthy recovery community. In this paper I will be using “A/N.A.” and “12-Step culture” to describe the organizations Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, and their respective informal fellowship basically interchangeably, as they is enough overlap to be basically indistinguishable at this point, in my opinion. I have no experience with other sister organizations such as Gamblers or Sex Addicts Anonymous, other than cross over members I have met. I assume those communities are similar enough for the purposes here.

It is my unwavering belief that a society can manage without the state effectively because I have seen it. Quaker conflict resolution is still practiced with relative, though not ubiquitous success. 12-Step communities basically are ongoing accountability processes [1]. Leftist adaptation has been more rocky, and seems to be considered with growing apprehension and disillusionment after many less than ideal applications. Here I will share my opinions about why I believe leftist communities often fail to reach copacetic resolutions to many Accountability Processes, and offer a few solutions where there is room for improvement. Here contained is a non-exhaustive list of common fail points in leftist Accountability Process and hopefully a few solutions.

Common Points of Failure

1. Survivor does not want to participate.

1. No safe, trusted and/or accessible mechanism.
2. Dependence, love, the kids (the classics).
3. Would rather have drama/violence.
4. Feels complicit or fears being seen as complicit.
5. Feels threatened by harm-doer or their allies.
6. Feels threatened by the community.
7. Is unable due to trauma.
8. Compounding history of consistent clusterfucks.

2. The accused does not want to participate.

1. The current paradigm already holds them as guilty and they are probably going to get ostracized whether they comply, whether or not they thing they did the thing.
2. A paradigm based on oversimplistic rhetoric  “we believe survivors” and “there is no such thing as mutual abuse” leads to a sense that admitting any amount of problematic behavior is paramount to rape/intimate terror.
3. Compounding history of consistent clusterfucks.

3. The situation has already hit social media or the rumor mill and drama is already unfolding by the time it gets to AP.

1. Survivors may think public call outs are the only option if there is no recognizable and accessible process entry point.
2. Private attempts to rally support have already failed.
3. The survivor(s) isn't even involved and the call out/rumors are from a 3rd party.

4. Facilitation is inadequate.

1. They are n00bz.
2. They get over zealous and over engineer.
3. Facilitation is not in consensus.
4. Facilitation has conflict of interests.

5. Process is inadequate.

1. Wrong process is used.
2. No closure mechanisms.
3. One or more parties does not understand process.
4. Unrealistic expectations form one or more parties.
5. Process does not account for greater community paradigm.

6. Third party and/or state derailment.

1. Snitches
2. Opportunists
3. Ops
4. Vigilantes

Proposed Actionable Solutions

1. Total and Concerted Coverage of Community Reconciliation Organizations

I think the best and most immediately actionable solution is to create regional or municipal Meta-Facilitation groups, especially in dense urban communities. Groups of trusted community members who basically facilitate the facilitation of conflict resolution processes. There have been many community conflict resolution groups, some of which have been active for many  years, but most burn out , especially if they are not funded. Many activists having been trying to create a culture of accountability for decades and other than a few isolated successes, there has been a failure to reach the critical mass needed for cultural change. There have been and still are net works, but I think a broader concerted effort to align activist communities is needed. Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha write in the preface to the second edition of The Revolution Starts at Home “When this book first came out in 2011, I was convinced that by now [2016] we’d have transformative justice centers centering Black and brown queer and trans feminism all over” [6]. Clearly this as been the ambition for a long time.  Simply having a standing body alone makes available a host of solutions to the problems listed above.

1. Having a previously consented upon playbook or playbooks for different circumstances.
2. Holding a level community granted authority to appoint facilitation in individual cases and hold lists of approved or otherwise tested facilitators.
3. Resolving disputes in facilitation.
4. Backstop and/or damage control if process fails, especially due to inadequate facilitation.
5. Generally overseeing process, especially in particularly sensitive cases.
6. Communication and standardization between regions.
7. Upholds reasonable exceptions to a reasonable extent.
8. Serve as contact point for people to come to.
9. Hold a record of community harm and harm-doers, if deemed secure.

In my opinion new groups should focus internally on left cases until they can become sustainable, either through dependable funding and/or established volunteer rotation.These groups should avoid getting sucked into greater struggle. Carceralism is bad and PIC abolition groups are good, but we got to organize our selves first. Youth programs are a good reference sometimes, but they are still backed by the enforcement mechanisms that we are trying to avoid all together. Limiting scope helps to prevent burnout. Also it may be that people in community are willing to volunteer with Conflict Resolutions groups after they go through a reasonably successful process. Maybe some expectation of labor return to the CR group could be an appropriate amends condition in some cases. 

A legacy of Community Accountability organizations and networks already exists and accountability culture has made huge strides in the last few decades. I do not think every mid sized and larger city on Turtle islands having their own standing Community Accountability organizations is a big as a lift as it might seem to some. In the past there are have been leftists moments with volunteer membership with chapters or formations in most or every major city on this continent. N/A.A. already is that in a non-leftist context. I would be really embarrassing if we, as grand visionaries of a brave new world, continue to allow ourselves to be out organized by a bunch of drunks and junkies.

2. Re-evaluate expectations of paid facilitation.

In Quaker tradition, outside facilitation is rare. paid facilitation is even rarer. Clearness Committees as almost all positions  are volunteer. In my opinion, most cases are best handled by people who know all the parties. This is not always the case, there are certainly times were unaffiliated objectiveness is preferable, but I think this should be the exception and not the norm. Sometimes Meetings will ask other Meetings for outside Clearness, these are still volunteers. I know of only one case of a Meeting hiring an arbitrator, and that was only in one extreme case where potentially mutually ruinous legal action seemed like the only alternative.

It is my understanding that the trend to pay facilitators is a product of the emotional labor discourse, and that this role often fell on women, especially women of color. I agree that we should not expect women, of color or otherwise, to be responsible for unpaid care. I think its better to expect men to get good then to paywall community care. Also without a standard of professional qualification, the experience of facilitation for hire varies wildly and results have proven to be very mixed. I think there are cases that require professional skill, especially if requested by one or more party. I hope that in the not-too-distant future there is a standardized industry with a common culture. In my opinion we are not there yet.

  In common practice, it is expected that the harm-doers will  cover the costs of any process. If we are to presume no party is “guilty” until otherwise proven, its creates a whole host of perverse incentives for everyone involved and coerces all parties to further entrench into defensive positions.

  There may be times were one party assumes financial responsibility with or without their assuming responsibility for the incident, or the parties agree to split costs. That is great when it happens, but seems like an unrealistic expectation all of the time.

In my research for project I read and listened to many stories of success and failure in the CA/TJ movement. Organizational relationships to funding as a major part of the majority of stories.[6][11] In most of theses cases it was a complicated factor, especially if the funding was tied to the state. I think its great if funding is available and and it behooves basically all projects if at least a few people are committed as their full time job. That being said in order to be resilient and independent, it is my opinion that any organization should be able to self fund, or function without dependable funding. 

The 7th and 8th traditions of A\N.A. strictly forbid chasing or even excepting funding and monetizing service.  “7. Every A.A. group ought to be fully self-supporting, declining outside contributions.” “8. Alcoholics Anonymous should remain forever non-professional, but our service centers may employ special workers.” [1][2] Both Alcoholics Narcotics Anonymous as organizations have lasted far longer than any NGO that relies on external  funding, either from the state, philanthropy, or even People Like You.

3. Replace Survivor/Abuser paradigm with a more mutaulistic understanding of harm, when appropriate.

Much ink has been spilled by leftist as what to call the person that has done harm and the person that was harmed. Quaker Meetings are notoriously decentralized and handle interpersonal conflict differently, but it is very common for Meetings to consider all parties equal until determined otherwise, most of the time.

In most Quaker communities, the structure of the resolution process is often relatively symmetrical for all involved parties. Obviously, in cases of clear of harm, individuals may have their own opinions and act accordingly, which is generally fine within reason, but officially the Meeting will not ascribe labels such abuser/perpetrator or victim/survivor, they are two parties embroiled in mutual conflict that seek mediation with equal rights and are, at least theoretically obligated equal support. In particularly disturbing cases, this is not always the case, but in the strict context of process all willing participants are equal Members unless they are determined otherwise, usually by full consensus of the Meeting or they refuse to consent with the process. In cases where it is found that one person to be more responsible for harm than another, it will be expected that they do more or in some cases all of the labor of reconciliation. In many cases it is determined by the Clearness and/or Conflict Resolution Committee(s) that both parties are to some extent responsible for the conflict, though not always equal extent and both parties will be deemed responsible for ensuring amends, though not always to equal extent.

Only if one party refuses to continue with the process, the Meeting will sometimes move into unilateral accountability and/or harm reduction mode, often resulting in the unconsenting party being made to leave the Meeting, either permanently, for a predetermined time or until certain conditions are met, depending on the inciting harm. In some cases the Meeting may take legal action against former members or support Members that do so, thought such cases are extremely rare.

This is in stark contrast with how accusations usually and rumors play out in leftist communities. Often, the accused will have already have been deemed problematic and facing social sanctions or total alienation by the time a process is suggested. Even in the best case scenarios, they are starting the process already with the label of Harmdoer/Abuser.

Anecdotally, the refusal of the accused party is the most common reason cited as process failure, if it can even be said to have started at all at that point. Generally people don't like taking responsibility for harm. As is true in general human society, there is often little to incentivise leftists to stand accountable when accused of doing harm. difficult to convince someone to voluntarily assume the liability, shame and often a variety of personal risks that are associated with assuming responsibility for harm caused. Not to discount legitimate denial.

The current stigma around IPV is so strong that an accusations of any type is enough for the accused to suspect they will suffer a great deal of ostracization, whether they believe they are responsible or not. The expectation is that the community will side with the survivor, which is good in general, but combined with the stigma associated any amount of IPV there is very little incentive to try to prove a negative in a process with little room for nuance. In many cases, the accused may determine they have the choice to drop out of community now, or go though a long, taxing, and potentially dangerous process, that will very likely also result in them being removed from community anyway. The proposition of formal process at that point may appear as a  zero/sum loss to them.

To over simplify this basically looks like replacing “ You have been accused of abuse. You need to confess.” to “We understand your relationship have become harmful and your partner as requested help from the community.”

4. All parties should have advocates available to them.

In any form of Quaker process, reconciliation or other wise, it is common to offer everyone involved an advocate, sponsor, or guide available to them, especially if it is their first time. This persons role is simply to help them navigate the process, help with logistics, make sure they are being treated in accordance with protocol and community standards.

They might sometimes act like lawyers as we know them, but also should enforce accountability and honesty from their wards in ways lawyers are not expected to. They do not co-signing of bullshit as is said in A/N.A. This may be a good role for people who have completed a process to take up to give back to the community.

5. Session(s) 0 where all parties come to consensus on process structure and safety agreements  before or as early in the process as possible.

Session 0 is concept popular in the Dungeons&Dragons community [8]. It is a session before a champagne starts to make sure everyone is in general alignment and establish boundaries. It is important that everyone knows what to expect and does not consent to a process when they do not really know what that means or if the do, what kind of of process they are agreeing too. It is also important to have an opportunity for all parties to present any boundaries they might have.

It is also imperative to have pre-arranged and consented contingency plans, damage control, and privacy/safety agreements in case of process collapse. Only a complete idiot would voluntarily put their families or careers in danger.

  This may not been possible, practical, or safe, especially if harm is ongoing or the harm-doer is defensive or belligerent, but even in those cases, a safety meeting needs to be a goal at some point. It may often necessary to do this separately for each party.

6. Standardization to a reasonable extent.

There are many left wing texts about conflict resolution, perhaps too many. I firmly believe leftists coordinating between cities should pick a few and work from there. If this is too much to expect, at least each city should choose a couple. There are already a few great resources and most of them are modular to varying degrees. Fumbling Toward[14] repair by Mariame Kaba & Shira Hassan is very popular. My personal favorite is  Creative Interventions Toolkit[7].

Some customization and evolution is cool, good and often necessary, but each Process should follow a clear and prearranged model, to a reasonable extent. It may need to have contingencies, but disagreement on process once it is underway should be considered a failing of all involved facilitation and should be corrected for. If the intersectionality or other circumstances of a situation are so complex that no model is deemed appropriate, a commitment to boundaries and rights of all involved must be upheld to maintain trust.

I understand the logic that every case is different with a specific set of circumstances, but we have been doing this for between 25 and 300,000 years, depending on your point of view. Patterns have emerged. In my opinion, its time we start reinforcing them. Also I am personally scepitical about how well “we’ll figure it out as we go along” scales into broader society.

Roles of facilitation needs to be clear  and so should their rights and responsibilities.

So many pitfalls can be avoided if there are reasonable expectations and a basic road map. Every process may be different, but there are patterns and a wealth of tried formulas. It takes a huge amount of mental energy to re-invent the wheel every time and have to second guess every step.

Having a generally common social contract is paramount to building wider community and culture.

7. Multiple and Dynamic Models

Different forms of harm require different processes. Harm done to one individual by another might need a different from of process from when there is mutual harm. Halting ongoing harm many need a much different process than addressing past and/or isolated harm.

In the Quaker context generally, problematic behavior brought to Group Consensus as result of perceived trespass against the community at large is handled in a much different way than conflicts between two members. Community issues are handled by the community at large or by a Clearness/Accountability Committee formed and authorized by the community at large. Clearness Committees are bodies made up of trusted community members, often with knowledge or experience relevant to the particular conflict. In left-space theses would probably be referred to Facilitation Committee or the Accountability Committee. Conflict between two members is generally handled privately by the 2 individuals, their representatives and a Clearness Committee between then.

In left community there is often little distinction when addressing harm. “Accountability Process” is a widely applied blanket term. Different types or scenarios of harm are best handled with widely different approaches. I certainly have applied the wrong tools a the wrong times in my accountability work, and I do not think I am alone.

8. Break up clusterfucks into multiple 2-party processes, when appropriate

Conflict involving 3 or more parties should be compartmentalized to some or exclusive extent. Individuals may be best suited to form aligned parties in some case, but this should be done with informed consent of all others involves and subject to review. it is too easy for people to get lost in the souse in multifaceted conflicts and emotions often bleed thru or get projected. It is also entirely possible that parties may having varying degrees of motivation, making the conflict between two parties impossible to resolve because of the inauthentic involvement of a third.  In cases were it is deemed that once person have harmed multiple people, it is probably best to treat those cases separately in terms of Conflict resolution even if it is deemed that the pattern of behavior warrants broader accountability.

In my opinion ongoing serial behavior probably warrants immediate harm reduction action from the community as a whole, and accountability should be pursued after immediate community safety is ensured.

9. Facilitation training must be informed by professional practice and peer reviewed research.

There are very few professional facilitators. There are many professional social workers and psychologists. There is a great deal of research on interpersonal violence among other common areas of accountability. Anyone facilitating a reconciliation process should do their research, even when they think thye do not. When researching for this paper I was shocked by how much of “conventional wisdom” around IPV held by leftists differs from models used by professional social scientists and clinicians.

10. Facilitation should includes members representing as many marginalized identities of the all the principal participants as possible.

It is important that community justice does not uphold the same discrimination as the legal system. it is also important that facilitation does not over correct for real, but relatively unrelated oppression at the expense of participants.

In the event that any neuro-divergence or addiction is deemed to be attributing factor, facilitators with close familiarity with the condition or mental health professionals must be consulted.

11. Pods seem cool.

As far as I know, the pod method as popularized by Mia Mingus [15] has not been practiced in any community I have been part of, but it is seems very similar to the A\N.A. practice of pigeon families and that works pretty well.

12. Men need to git gud at facilitation, accountability and otherwise.

Generally men need to do more emotional and intellectual labor for the community. Even in spaces that are lead by non-bro people, men should be prepared to take up any role asked of them.

There has been an attempt in activist communities lately to give more leadership to women, fems and those most marginalized by intersectionality. That is good, however leadership roles are also are often those that are associated with  administrative labor which is also taxing. I believe this has contributed to the already significant problem of men not being interested in developing their organizational and community maintenance skills.

The simplest way to start is by expecting men to not only step away from power and glory seeking behavior, but actively picking up non-leadership administrative roles, like note taker and low stakes facilitator.

14. Off load labor, when appropriate.

In a lot of cases that involves addiction, the solution might just be making sure one or more parties is attending A.A. regularly and has a sponsor. N.A. is secular enough to accommodate people strongly opposed to “god” [2]. If there is real religious trauma involved, maybe SMART, but I do not know enough to recommend it. The few people I have talked to who have been involved with SMART have given ambivalent reviews.

Therapy is so hot right now. Making sure everybody has access to mental health professionals is already a priority at the best of times. Everyone who does have access should be highly encouraged to do so and those that do not know, should find out.

15. Practice process for other and more trivial matters.

In Quaker culture Clearness Committees are assembled for a wide variety of causes including but not limited to marriage proposals, coming of age, membership admittance, large expenditures. Conflict resolution is a relatively rare use. Organizers are already somewhat familiar with decision making. Low stakes or at least less emotionally strenuous clearness processes are good training, as well as being useful on their own merits.

16. Organization and normalization of a men’s groups within leftist context.

I have participated in a “mythopoetic” men’s group and found it massively helpful in constructing my masculinity in young adulthood. There are definitely criticisms to be made of the Men’s Movements of the 80’s and 90’s and obviously the Men’s Rights Movement of the 00’s onward is hate movement against women, non-men, and trans men. All that in account, the basic concept of a men’s group is significant praxis. They may also may function as accountability pods, if I am understanding the practice correctly.

Long Term Cultural Shifts and Other Utopian Nonsense

Simply put A.A. and its various overlapping spin-off groups have formed a globe spanning network that is exactly what many leftist, especially anarchists, wish “The Left” was. It is a highly yet horizontally organized decentralized network of both official and unofficial nodes across many cultures and class that unifies all members in a single struggle that all are actively engaged in. Both personal and group accountability is centered and much of the community care that leftists wish to emulate is baked into the culture. There's even regular book clubs dedicated unlearning toxic behavior, and for the real freaks, discussing the minutia of obscure organizational documents. The mutual aid infrastructure both formal and informal is probably strong enough to qualify it as a full-blown dualist society. Every once in a while its even socially acceptable to humble-brag about all the fun crimes you got away with when you were a kid. Bill W., the founder of A.A. has cited Mikhal Bakunin as an inspiration when forming the group. I believe there are strong arguments to be made that A.A. is a much stronger manifestation of Bread Daddy’s work [17] than anything currently being run by anyone who knows what a syndicalism is. It is increasing common in the last few years for anons, both leftist and otherwise, to refer to A.A. meetings as “the anarchist book club”. In my opinion, they wouldn't find it nearly a edgy, if they had ever been to an actual anarchist book club. A.A. meeting are generally way more interesting and the stories are generally way harder.

My point in saying all that, is that it is active proof that more just and caring societies are possible. There are even working models running on the same platforms we espouse.  Many  leftists have grown disillusioned, particularly around issues involving community care. A better world is possible. The communities we wish we had do exists and sometimes even organize in the same churches as leftists do. You’re just not allowed to join if you have never woken up with 15 stitches in your gourd or dreamed about bourbon in the trauma ward [16].

1. General consensus on what accountability even is.

It seems to me, there currently is a disconnect with many activists who work specifically in conflict resolution and the general leftist community. While many thought leaders in the community resolution space calling for an end or at least mitigation of call out culture [AMB]and dehumanization of people who have caused harm [MK] and the general community still enforcing a fairly strict purity culture.

I believe there currently exists a paradox of a need to address the harm caused by some people, sometimes publicly, and an strict aversion by most other activists and organization to ever be associated with anyone who has ever been outed as problematic. Concerns about optics will lead many to err on the side of alienation, assuming they don't just do a cover-up.

It may be necessary to out people as harmful, especially if their harm is on going. It may be necessary for past harm to be addressed, but as of now many people and groups have wildly different ideas on how to handle harm and in some cases, actions taken by a single party can make reconciliation or transformation impossible.

2. Co-existence of sections of community with different standards of behavior and past behavior.

On an organization level, each org should have it's own standards on past behavior. 0-tolerance for IPV my be good for organizations than interface with vulnerable populations. 0-tolerance of past bad behavior is probably not best for something like a squat cracking crew, where a high risk tolerance and libertine and/or anti-social personality traits are basically prerequisites. Not to say all career criminals have also perpetrated IPV, or that recent instances or current patterns of IPV are acceptable anywhere, but there is often correlation of anti-social behaviors and communities reflects that.

The same concept can be applied to informal community as well. At times in curtain cities, there is a distinct phenomenon of punk scenes spiting into 2 or more communities. with the same or at least similar music. Usually this happens along gender lines  with one scene being distinctly more fem and queer. This has been the case in leftspace as well. If a community does in fact have harm-doers in it, people should not have to be in community with them, at least all the time. As in A/N.A. in major cities there are enough women's meeting that women/fems can exist meaningfully and be in community without having to interact with men if they choose not to. There are many women in A/N.A. who do this. Creating safe spaces from problematic or messy people also some times makes space for messy or problematic people, instead of having one singular standard of appropriate behavior or at least past behavior.

Punk culture has survived and flourished while maintaining massive contradictions. Riot Grrrl exits along side hyper masculinity. Both straight edge and rampant substance abuse exist parallel to each other. There is some fiction and yet the movement stumbles forwards.  Moral delineation often seems to be a diversifying strength in punk cultural and insidious catalyst for in-fighting in left culture.

3. Revival of community overlap.

As stated earlier I believe that most common fail point of community reconciliation is the  participation of the accused. There may often seem to be no hope for them ever being in meaningful community with their local organizing base again. I do not believe this is a barrier any formal organization can fix. It is perfectly reasonable for individuals to not want to work with certain people based on past transgressions regardless if an accountability process has “cleared” them. Even if all the the actionable solutions listed above were to be implemented and worked perfectly, it would mean very little if  the vast majority of their community as individuals still rejected them as individuals and there was nowhere else for them to go.

I believe this is already leading to a similar paradox the left is currently going thru with the “reformed red-pillers” and “flipped nazis ”. There is a general consensus that there needs to be a contained space for people to unlearn and shed their toxicity before fully entering leftist organizing spaces, but there are very few people or organizations that are willing to facilitate or even envision such a space. The vast majority of leftists communities have firmly rejected being used as a “decontamination zone”. Certainly every community has the right to set its own boundaries, but if all communities are hardened against any amount of even perceived toxicity, there is a game of moral NIMBYism afoot that erodes the spaces that tranformative process necessitates.

I believe the solution is the creation and expansion of communities and organizations with a low bar of moral scrutiny that are also focused on self growth, as well as integration and re-integration with parallel subcultures that already exist. Again, that is already what N\A.A. already is Several sub-movement in punk have focus on self growth and community care, thou many have not.

Leftist cultural has been increasingly insular from other sub and counter cultures that once were it life blood. Punk and activist scenes have at times barely been indistinguishable in some cities and now often feel completely disparate. Squatting and vagabond communities have been broken up and repressed into near non-existence, the pagan/witch moments has grown but been increasing untethered from its activist roots. I was never cool enough to be in the graffiti scene, I have no idea how that's going. New counter-cultural  scenes, movements, or communities have generally failed to take their place as feeder and incubation spaces for people to learn and grow into more rigorous organizing spaces. Or at least that is my impression, as an old. There is, I believe, strong overlap with left culture and sex work and queer culture in many places. These are generally inaccessible to many and should probably remain so.

Obviously, the death of subculture and the atomization of society has been much bemoaned for a wide variety of reasons. It would appear to me that some subcultures are being to flourish again after dormancy. Cultural overlap is beneficial for many reasons. Unrealistic levels of purity or even the expectation there of, may make cultural crossover more difficult. It is reasonable and in fact necessary for activist space to be hardened against predators and a wide variety of destabilizing actors. At least some need to be accessible and flexible enough in interface and hopefully blend with as many cultural movements and communities as possible. 

4. General consensus on paths of reconciliation and communities of trust.

Even when clear and actionable amends are prescribed by an accountability process and followed, it is up each individual in a community to what extent they want to be in contact with those that have caused harm, especially if that harm was done to them. In cases where community reintegration is the goal or at least possible to some extent, the whole or at least vast majority of the community needs to be in general agreement or at least non-adverse. Without a general culture of empathy, the efficacy of any accountability process is limited to those directly involved. In cases were closure for the harmed parties is the the extent of processes purpose, that may be enough, but if community resolution is to be a truly restorative process,  the community as a whole needs to be at least on board with the basic concept of restoration to some extent. Many communities have already proven to be there already, some have not. It is perfectly reasonable for communities to set their own tolerances for problematic people, but that is something that need to be accounted for.

I think its fair to say most if not all leftists want to see the prison industrial complex replaced with some form of community justice protocol. I think there are many different visions about what that looks like amongst us.

Processes declaring “clearness” when that is not the feeling among the generally community erodes their trust as effective bodies. A 3rd party or vocal minority can detail a process. Nobody should be forced in community with any body they don't want to be with. A good process should take that into account in ongoing amends. That being said there should be cultural norms not to derail amends and reconciliation as with the process itself, without good reason to do so.

There need to be a culture of trust that extends to people that have caused harm, especially abuse that is also highly illegal and stigmatized, as well as those that are harmed and abused. It only takes on person in the community to turn to the state or media to spiral a situation out of the control of the of everyone involved. Kaba sums up this problem succinctly in her interview with In These Times “...we do have the threat that if you do admit that you do this, you might be caught up in the criminal punishment system. You might see the inside of a jail. So your inclination is to deny, deny, deny until the very end. There is just no incentive for you to ​“come clean” and be like, ​“I actually did this. Yes, I did rape this person. I did sexually assault them. I did harass them. I did molest them.” We are in this adversarial model where you don’t admit it, and the person who is actually being placed on trial is the survivor, to prove that you actually did this [13].” adrienna maree brown also raises concerns about call out and public apologies being weaponized by the state against activist communities, with or without active snitches [4].

5. Allowance for Nuance In Community discussion.

People and community need to be able to recognize the humanity of perpetrators of harm without being reduced to apologists [4][11][14]. The current climate around harm and particularly abuse is often so emotionally charged and unforgiving that having a practical or forward thinking conversion opens up one for attack. Certainly critique is part of the process that leads to innovation, but censorship and fear of community can only stifle cultural development.

Many people seem to be caught up in unnuanced and in some case inaccurate slogans that make practical discussion impossible. “There is no such thing as mutual abuse” for example is debated professional social workers and peer reviewed studies on IPV, and can easily be confused to mean “there is no such thing as mutual harm” which is not the case [9][12]. “We believe Survivors” is both an important affirmation to survivors and powerful pronouncement of social standards. It does not mean a survivor's account is literal Truth, which is where it is often carried. There may be arguments to be made that over simplistic one-liners might be valuable pop culture and what people currently going thru abuse need to see and hear. Either way, I’m not sure they are foundational grounds for all praxis, all the time.

I believe this is already significantly less of an issue in real life, where adults are still able to accommodate human conversation. Perhaps a civil online discourse is naively fanciful in our life times, but maybe our kids can figure it out.

Conclusion

N/A.A. culture is a proof that once a common culture of accountability is accepted, it will self perpetuate and reinforce. 12-Step community are generally aware of the vulnerability risks, especially for people who are young or are still in withdrawal, there is already a strong and ever evolving security and care culture. There is lineage of trusted community members who are generally trusted to handle problem without too much community spectacle. 12-Step culture as proven to be fairly adaptable and has a fairly good record of identifying and self correcting for internal problematic trends when they emerge, as well as being rooted in tradition to the point of being resistant to outside cultural forces. There are exceptions, toxic meetings and communities do exist.

References

[1] Alcoholics Anonymous World Services, Inc. (2013). Alcoholics anonymous, fourth edition. A. A. World Services, Inc.

[2] Anonymous, N. (2008). Narcotics anonymous (6th ed.). Narcotics Anonymous World Services, Incorporated.

[3] brown. (2017). Emergent strategy: Shaping change, changing worlds. AK Press.

[4] brown. (2020). We will not cancel us : And other dreams of transformative justice. Ak Press.

[5] brown. (2024). Loving corrections. Emergent Strategy.

[6] Chin-In Chen, Jai Dulani, & Leah Lakshmi Piepzana-Samarasinha. (2016). The revolution starts at home : Confronting intimate violence within activist communities. Ak Press.

[7] Creative Interventions. (2021). Creative interventions toolkit : A practical guide to stop interpersonal violence. Ak Press.

[8] Dungeons & Dragons. (2020). Tasha’s Cauldron of everything (D&D rules expansion) (dungeons & dragons). Wizards of the Coast.

[9] forebygging.no. (2012, November 13). Types of Domestic Violence: Research Evidence, ved Michael P. Johnson [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEVsfkO0F-g

[10] hooks. (2004). The will to change: Men, masculinity, and love. Washington Square Press.

[11] invincible@emergencemedia.org. (2025, April 22). Trans & queer organizing | creative interventions. Creative Interventions. https://www.creative-interventions.org/sfp/trans-queer-organizing/

[12] Johnson, M. P. (2012). A typology of domestic violence. UPNE.

[13] Kaba, M. (2021). We do this “til we free us : Abolitionist organizing and transforming justice. Haymarket Books.

[14] Kaba, M., & Hassan, S. (2019). Fumbling towards repair : A workbook for community accountability facilitators. Project Nia, June.

[15] Mingus, M. (2023, March 16). SOILTJP - pods. Www.Soiltjp.Org. https://www.soiltjp.org/our-work/resources/pods

[16] Mischief Brew - Topic. (2014, November 7). Coffee, god, and cigarettes [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKclBgisCMA

[17] Petr Alekseevich Kropotkin, Kni︠a︡zʹ. (1927). The conquest of bread. (Second printing.). Vanguard Press.