Cohousing-L Mailing List: RE: Diversity and Values

[Buzz Burrell (72253.2101]

This is a wonderful paradox!
Rob S said:  
"I would recommend as a group forms, to create a vision statement which lays
out your goals and any important values and make everyone who joins read and
accept those, or get the whole group to modify it together."
Mike M said:
"I agree people in coho groups should share *some* values -- but only the
basics, those values that are essential to achieving enough cohesiveness to
launch the community." 

The paradox is that without common values cohousing just isn't going to work
well (as Rob explains in detail), while on the other hand, if everyone has the
same values, we are validating intolerance and are going to have a hard time
creating any diversity, which is another goal.  They are somewhat at odds with
each other.

My thoughts are these:

1. Rob's statement "...it is a good idea to identify major values of the group
EARLY in the process and communicate those values clearly so that people who
join later know about and can tolerate or agree with those values" is a sentance
that I think should be required reading for every cohousing group.  The
CoHousing book should put a warning on the first page saying "do not proceed
until you do this".  So much time is spent on "designing the common house" or
"land search", but all those things are details compared with establishing
common values.
        Carolines Estes, renowned group facilitator, national instructor in the
consensus method of 
decision making, and major egalitarian advocate, states unequivicaly:  If you do
not have a common vision, never try to make decisions consensually.
        I've seen groups who have skipped this step, and it is an almost scary
sight to see; so much good energy at risk.

2. However, in the parlance of personal or group process or facilitation, many
of the "values" Rob uses as examples are not values, but are considered
"decisions" or "opinions".  This is a subtle but important distinction.  To term
every opinion one has as a "personal value" would make discussions loaded with
difficult to deal with energy.  For example, "considering the earth sacred"
would be a personal value, but "wanting to have a group compost pile" is not a
value, it is a desire, opinion, or personal decision.  It may be derived from a
strong personal value, but is quite different, and thus should be available for
compromise, discussion, and change.
        This is significant because people with the same values can have
completely different opinions based on them.  One shouldn't change one's core
values, but one certainly should be able to change one's opinions or decisions,
and be open to learn from other peoples opinions and desires.  Then, as Mike
suggested, a community can have diversity, tolerance, and thus more strength,
while if the basic values are different, then as Rob says, you're in trouble.
Thus the importance of distinguishing.     

3. Mike quotes from the Mission Statement of Geneva Community (yes, it is
unchanged).  We are no shining example of anything, but I do like our Mission
Statement!  We read it aloud before every meeting in order to keep the focus.
As Mike says, it is explicit, but does not cover decisions at all, which is a
different matter altogether.
        "To assist each other to fulfill our life's purposes and contribute to
the sustainability and evolution of humanity and our Earth".  I'm glad Mike
quoted that one, because to me as well it is the bottom line, the essence of why
we are together.
        Thus, the way it can work in an ideal situation, is this:  when a
decision is needed, rather than touting our own wonderfully articulate or
passionate personal opinions on the subject, we can go back to that line from
the Mission Statement, and we all can look to see which decision best fulfills
it (as oppossed to which decision best serves oneself).  It's like the Supreme
Court testing a new law by seeing if it is in the spirit of the Constitution.
To make a decision based on the community good rather than the personal is a
wonderfull expression of community.  This only is healthy and not dis-empowering
if the there are shared values.
        Mike says "I like Geneva's mission and goals and believe they help
prevent getting into
differences about things such as Rob mentioned in his "typical values conflicts"
list."  My reply, is "thanks for the positive energy" and "they do work ... to
the degree that we follow them"!

So it seems to me that the paradox of shared values vs diversity can be solved
by distinguishing between opinions and values, establishing those values early
on, and then referring to them instead of one's own opinion when the discussion
gets heated and the 'compost hits the fan'.

The reason I'm writing this, as you've probably already guessed, is because I
need to hear it over and over again in order to get it myself.

Buzz Burrell
Boulder