balance | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Lyle Scheer (wonko![]() |
|
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2010 08:42:01 -0800 (PST) |
On 2/24/10 7:58 AM, Kristen Simmons wrote: > I haven't found anywhere in the cohousing literature specifically about > inclusiveness or exclusiveness. Although certainly deliberately inflicting > pain on a neighbor would seem to be not very "cohouse-y". > Perhaps unrelated, but this thread is reminding me of thoughts I've had about consensus and my community's struggle with consensus... I believe my community has some trouble around consensus because we spend a lot of time trying to get a solution that everyone agrees to. I do not believe this is actually consensus. This, in my mind, is very similar to attempting to find solutions or make rules that makes everyone happy. I would liken this sort of situation as somewhat similar to our current congressional deadlock on healthcare. I liken it to this with some trepidation as that whole mess I'm sure would bring up specific emotional responses which I'm not looking for. As for my example, congress is in deadlock from two very different directions. Doing nothing is invariably worse than doing something. While each side likens the other side as disaster, it appears to me that the truth of the matter is that either side would be better than nothing. Perhaps my trepidation is uncalled for.... those emotional responses are also things that are seen in consensus discussions. Polarization seems to be the problem here. I'm claiming, for purposes of this discussion, that if you have a reaction to either extremes in healthcare solutions, that this reaction is what is destructive to the process. If you consider socialization akin to communism (or even that communism is the devil), or if you consider free-market as a failure, perhaps you're falling into the polarization trap. On the other side of this, it seems not healthy to a community to have any festering discontents, negative emotions, or (and this may be stretching) disagreements. I'm curious to hear about other experiences in co-housing on how your particular group handles this balance. If I understand the process of consensus, if working properly, explores but does not necessarily "fix" the emotions, discontents, or disagreements, but potentially asks the minority or even the majority to consent (allow) a decision to be made and live with it for the best interests of the whole community. The balance I'm referring to is where do you compromise and where do you request consent to the policy as originally conceived? I've seen various "bars" to exceed... does it meet community values? Is it in the best interest of the community or a personal feeling you are exploring? However, there seem to be many cases where this is not entirely clear, and it could go either way. Do you just flip a coin or take a straw poll? Do you try it one way for 6 months and the other way for 6 months? What do you do if there is no clear direction evolving? This is especially hard if there is a clear minority/majority position. - Lyle
-
hurting others, Subj: limited-access events in common space Monty Berman, February 23 2010
-
Re: hurting others, Subj: limited-access events in common space Joanie Connors, February 23 2010
-
Re: hurting others, Subj: limited-access events in common space Diana E Carroll, February 23 2010
- Re: hurting others, Subj: limited-access events in common space Kristen Simmons, February 24 2010
- balance Lyle Scheer, February 24 2010
- Consensus [was balance] Sharon Villines, February 24 2010
- Re: Consensus [was balance] Rob Sandelin, February 24 2010
- Re: Consensus [was balance] Sharon Villines, February 25 2010
- Re: Consensus [was balance] Ann Zabaldo, February 25 2010
-
Re: hurting others, Subj: limited-access events in common space Diana E Carroll, February 23 2010
-
Re: hurting others, Subj: limited-access events in common space Joanie Connors, February 23 2010
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.