Archive for May, 2009

Although I am an Alchemy board member at the time of this writing, these opinions are mine alone, and should not be taken to reflect the opinions of anyone else.

When Issa did a census at Alchemy in 2008, she asked people to list as many of the Ten Principles as she could. Immediacy was one of the most-commonly omitted. I think that might be because Immediacy is somewhat intangible and not as obviously-defined as, say, Radical Self-Expression or Participation. Although Immediacy might be commonly overlooked, it is probably my favorite of the Burning Man principles, and it drives nearly every decision that I make as an Alchemy board member.

My definition of Immediacy hinges on a semi-literal interpretation of the word. “Without mediation. Without anything in the middle.” Mediation occurs when someone or something stands between you and your experience. The essence of Immediacy for me is having direct experiences instead of reading about them or having someone tell you about them. It is also directly experiencing the consequences of your choices, as opposed to letting someone else feel the heat.

As an Alchemy board member, Immediacy means that, whenever possible, I get out of the way and let the participants decide how they want their burn to run. The most Immediate burn would be one that was directly managed by all of the participants, but it remains to be seen whether this type of event would have the characteristics that people are looking for when they attend a “burn.” So, in order to have a “burn” and not some other kind of event, some reduction in Immediacy is selected. A board is elected to make certain decisions by proxy, on behalf of the participants. Still, whenever possible, my goal as a board member is to preserve Immediacy by pushing as much influence and responsibility away from the board members, the team leads, and the other organizers, and onto the individual participants of the event.

What responsibilities do I think the board should have?

First, I think that the board is responsible for managing the interface between the burn and the Default World. Inside the “bubble” of the burn itself, I want individual participants to be responsible for managing their own experience, including resolving disputes and solving problems. But people outside the burn have not opted into the burn experience, and they may call on Default World methods of problem solving to resolve conflicts that originate within the burn. For example, if amplified sound from within the burn is heard by neighbors, they might call the cops to complain. The cops might then intrude on the burn and interfere with the experience that the participants are trying to have. I think that the board’s responsibility is to head off situations like this, where the Default World’s response to the burn threatens the existence of the burn itself.

Second, I think that the board is responsible for maintaining the framework of the event itself. Despite their chaotic nature, burns are not fully anarchic events. A framework exists within which the event occurs, and the nature of that framework is what makes a burn what it is and not some other kind of event. For example, in a fully anarchic event, you could throw trash on the ground and probably not expect any consequences. At a burn, the principle of Leave No Trace means that people are likely to give you some shit for it. As a board member, I try to shape the framework of the event to reflect the desires of the attendees and my own personal ideas of what a burn should be. I supported a policy of not allowing un-decorated cars within the gates once the event had begun. It was my personal philosophy that cars would serve as a constant link to the Default World, and would hinder the full immersion of the participants in the “bubble” of the burn. For a similar reason, I supported a policy prohibiting “in-and-outs” at the gate.

The second responsibility relies a lot on my personal picture of what a burn should be. Imposing my personal vision of a burn on the participants is somewhat counter to the principle of Immediacy, but I believe that the participants want some degree of this. They wouldn’t have elected board members if they didn’t want someone making some decisions on their behalf! The loss of Immediacy is balanced out by the fact that participants have the ultimate recourse of not re-electing a member whose personal vision is too far out of line with theirs, or who goes too far in imposing his or her personal philosophy.