The objective of the experiment was for the aesthetic boundary, which usually separates observer and actor, to be shattered. During the climax of the fifteen minute sitcom skit (in which a customer at a fast food drive-thru window refuses service, refuses to drive forward, stopping everything during the lunch rush), one activist interrupted from the back of the audience, saying, "This is supposed to be about Earth First! You haven't mentioned trees yet!"
The customer stuck in the drive-thru responded casually, stating that it's futile to talk about Headwaters or anything else if nobody is paying attention. "They can't hear you."
Confusion reigned at this awkward moment, as most of the cast pretended to be unaware of the interruption's existence. In the chaos, fantasty became reality. The audience members took action. Several students, apparently believing that the activist interrupting the play was seriously upset with the cast members, began to intervene, saying, "Give [the play] a chance. They're talking about slavery to money, or something. Maybe they just haven't gotten around to [the point] yet."
The action of the drama on stage dissipated as cast members formed a rainbow across the back of the stage, creating the feeling of a consesus ring, pleading, "focus!" There was no planned facillitator, so uninhibited cross-talk intensified the energy as the circle's conversation got underway. As we danced through the inevitable questions, answers, if's, and's, and but's of the consesus process, it became apparent that everybody feels the same about Headwaters forest, about the consumption patterns of Western culture, and so on. Just like at a regular base camp meeting, the argument was not over what needs to be stopped, but what should be done.
One student wondered why activists aren't planting trees in clear cuts.
It was suggested that preserving the life of a virgin grove might be a more pressing issue at this point. It was explained that activists are people just like everyone else, and that we're doing the best we can. As the confrontational person's questions continued, it was suggested that the student could start an affinity group, and they could go plant trees in clear cuts. The barrage continued until some students unfamiliar with the consensus process grew irritated with the hyper-cynical attitude of the heckler, shouting, "Shut Up! Let somebody else talk!"
Several activists stepped forward, shouting, "Non-violence! Point of Information!" After a brief pause, the conversation returned to a peaceful tempo, with one person speaking at a time.
In the fifty-five minutes allotted by the California Dept of Education, over one hundred people learned first-hand what it's like to be planning actions at an Earth First! consensus circle. We learned that an activist is not necessarilly a member of an affinity group, but is any person who takes responsibility for the welfare of the whole. Together, we witnessed argument, and we saw resolution. We learned that it's possible for a group of previously unaquainted people to be united on a common assumption: that the welfare of the earth is the first priority of its inhabitants.
The events inside the band room on May 23 illustrate the situation activism faces in the larger focus the national media brings to the living rooms of faithful television viewers and mainstream newspaper readers across the country. The dualistic mind of Western culture cannot understand that Headwaters is not a two-sided issue in the traditional "us"--"them" sense. It is up to the activist--"us" -- to reveal the reality that there is no "them".
Copyright Mendocino Environmental Center 1997
Permission granted to excerpt or use this article if source is cited