Kids and decision making... -- Krasle
From: Fred H Olson (fholsoncohousing.org)
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 19:09:06 -0700 (MST)
George Krasle <GSKrasle [at] hotmail.com>
is the author of the message below. 
It was posted by Fred the Cohousing-L list manager <fholson [at] cohousing.org> 
because the message included HTML ;      PLEASE do not post HTML, see
   http://csf.colorado.edu/cohousing/2001/msg01672.html
--------------------  FORWARDED MESSAGE FOLLOWS --------------------

Ooo Ouch! 

>And another child would NOT deserve to be included? Forgive my bluntness
>here, George, but I'm not inclined to listen to someone who just wrote a
>completely irrelevant paragraph about how perfect his child is. 

I feel it IS relevant, because it shows that she has demonstrated that she
is the natural representative of the other kids, that she is able and
interested in discussion and negotiation (because that is how she was
raised), and that she is patient and cooperative, not disruptive. Not all
kids have these traits. The part about her favourite foods being healthful
WAS fatuous, but was small. And I did not say that other kids were not
deserving. I said that this child is deserving. If I say "this car is red"
it does not mean "another car is not red."

_I_ have an "autism-spectrum disorder." Watch your assumptions.

>What does your child being a gourmand have to do with the price of tea in
>China, anyway? Supremely popular? Gag me with a phrase, George. Spare me
>your snobby verbosity.

A personal attack? I was pointing out that she has individuality, that she
has her own perspective, and has the social ability and inclination to
help to bring-in the perspectives of other, less articulate kids, not just
a small clique. A range of perspectives is something that has on this
forum been described as desireable in discussions. Excuse me for using
concrete examples to illustrate this; I guess it was misunderstood.

>you are coming to the list for validation of your victimhood

You know best; in judging me, you have judged well; I must defer to your
superiority.

>Do you want us to say, "Gosh George, your community is so
>awful, you are perfectly right in anything you decide to do about it"? This
>is a matter for your conflict resolution committee, or some such internal
>group. 

The story is a description of fact, without analysis, as many others have
posted. It is possible to learn from ugly things as well as pretty ones,
from failures as well as successes. If I add analysis, I would say "Check
that your Leader is prepared to respect any children who attend meetings,
otherwise the result could be bad for them, making them not only distrust
certain adults, but maybe all of them, and certainly make them mistrust
the decision process." As I posted the first time, mediation was refused,
and other attempts at conflict resolution have been anemic. I ASKED what
other course I could have taken. I still ask it. Legally, is there a way
to compel adherence to the published bylaws? What should I decide to do?
My biggest concern is the health and safety of my children, and not just
from chemicals that are toxic.

>I see a lot about power struggles on the list. 

That's why I'm here. That's what Songaia has. The procedures in the bylaws
are no help, as the problem is in not following the bylaws.

>Sociocracy as we practice it has many "aikido moves." You don't fight: you
>yield, but in such a way that success depends on the person with the request
>following through in a very specific way. It is amazing to me how many times
>this takes the teeth right out of a conflict with very little fuss--and even
>more amazing how often the person with the request feels happy simply to
>have been heard & has no need to follow through after that.

That's the kind of idea I am looking for! This unique metaphor sounds very
wide in its applicability. How to apply it to a particular situation,
ohhh, say mine, is the question.... I spent most of one night sweeping up
the biggest pile of arsenic-contaminated sawdust, even though my proposal
had not been accepted. I acted because months of rain had spread it
around, and the job was just getting bigger. I got some help: the adjacent
resident let me plug in my lights, and some weeks later, one of the
leaders even helped me wheelbarrow the big pile of sawdust and dirt I made
to the giant deep hole I had dug (across the compound) to receive it. I
had hoped that this demonstration of my willingness to follow-through
without costing the community any money or time would facilitate my being
allowed to address any other arsenic sites and my other concerns.

Some of my concerns are not shared at Songaia; I came to this community
having memorized the contents of the web site, promotional materials and
bylaws, and I made it clear that I wanted, among other things, to give my
kids a safe home, away from what I consider unreasonable dangers,
including toxic chemicals. To be overruled in these strong concerns is
more galling than being overruled in things like carpet choice for our
unit, or being asked to get a vasectomy. There has been some discussion
here about how to take into account the differences between whims or
preferences and strongly-held convictions. That is very interesting to me.
What about matters, as child safety, that are inherently the personal
responsibility of a parent? Perhaps those who are very concerned about
something can come to some specific ameliorating agreement directly with
those with slight concern, but on the other side? ("If you let me have a
little patch of the garden for my favourite vegetables, I will haul manure
all year"?)

>We have had proposals pass that no one had big objections to but that didn't
>have enough energy to get carried out. This outcome to a proposal very
>possibly reflects that the proposal was for somebody *else* to do some kind
>of work--which in sociocracy, hardly ever gets you very far.

I have seen this, but I have sort of the opposite problem: I want to do
certain things (such as paying from my own pocket [or making trades to
nurserymen] to substitute premium landscaping materials for commodity
ones), but am blocked. I AM however familiar with the discouragement that
comes from being denied and excluded! Not very motivating!

>I have read something to the effect that there are leadership roles in
>cohousing but no leaders. I don't confess to understand that statement,
>although I do understand that in inhabited cohousing a strong leader could
>be a problem.

The quote is on Songaia's promo materials, but the problem you describe is
on the compound.

I am sorry to have ruffled some feathers, but please bear in mind that the
difficulties I have are real, and that I am interested in resolving them,
if possible, and in warning others how to avoid them, if possible. As a
scientist, I am strongly convinced that the results of failed experiments
are just as important as those of successful ones, and should be noted.
"Trial and Error" is one way to create new knowledge, but "Trial and
Trial" is not. And I would rather learn from others' mistakes than repeat
them myself, so I extend this opportunity to you. I wish the others at
Songaia would contribute as well, as their input would be very helpful in
helping others to avoid the problems that, by definition, exist. Hiding
them, or refusing to discuss them, doesn't help anybody.

At least the folks who bought our house are letting me maintain our old
garden there (free vegetables and fruits for them!), and any number of
friends in the plant clubs are happy for my help, so I am not completely
shut-off from contact with the soil. Today, I saw the first crocus
blooming; such hopeful flowers, waiting for the sun until they open.

And the Band Played On....

George S. Krasle






_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.