RE: Standing Aside
From: Buzz Burrell (72253.2101compuserve.com)
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 1995 20:46:07 -0500
Mac asked (Hi Mac) how Standing Aside would actually work, and made the
following example:

>If,by consensus decision, the community decides to buy a roto-tiller at a
>cost of $600 ($30 per household), it would only seem fair that all members
>would have to share the cost equally.  A consensus decision is after all a
>community decision and the community should act as a whole in its
>implementation.

BTW, "Standing Aside" is a term I first heard from Caroline Estes and refers to
persons who don't particularly like a decision but aren't going to stop the
group ("Blocking" or "Standing in the Way") from proceeding.

I believe S.A. can have either interpretation - that person disagrees but still
must continue to participate, or that person disagrees and takes themselves out
of the loop entirely.

At Geneva, in keeping with our general trend of things, its the later.  Using
your example (and this is not hypothetical), I've been gardening for 20 years
and never used a rototiller.  I don't even like them, but other people use them
all the time.  This little point could be debated forever, but why bother?  Why
not just respect each other's way of doing things.  The solution seems clear to
me:  those who want one buy it, and those that don't, don't.  Easy.  As my
father used to say, its a free country.

We are planning on applying that philosophy to many things.  It first came up
discussing a workshop building;  someone pointed out that she never works on
anything, and so it would be a total waste of her money.  Solution:  those that
want one, build it, those who don't, don't.   As it happens, she wants to have
horses, so guess who's going to build the horse barn.

This method allows people with more time, money, desire, or ideas to go ahead
without being thwarted by others.  Likewise, it allows people with the bare
minimum of funds needed to participate to hang in there without other demands
being put on them.  Both the above a potential problems in community that are
eased by the laisse-faire approach.

The fundemental principal here is:  we all don't have to be doing the same
things to be a community.  Indeed, I think it's stronger and healthier if people
pursue their own life's desires and dreams;  such diverstity contributes, not
subtracts from the community.   Without the Standing Aside principle, which
would require everyone to agree and participate on everything that ever gets
done, the result can be the "Lowest Common Denominator" syndrom, which is highly
visable if you've ever visited a communist country.  "Design by Committee" is
one way we sometimes describe a decision that is lacking in human realities.

I think the question you raised is a good one, and will need addressing
regularly, becaus both styles will have to be employed at different times.  And
I'm sure different communities will use them in different ratios.

A couple examples I can think of:

One could even Stand Aside on a decision to buy land.  That person would not pay
any money and could still be a member of the community, but just couldn't live
there.  Why not, if it's a community of people, not a subdivision.

On the other hand, we've decided that the Commonhouse is essential, and in it's
basic form, is part of the buy-in package (one cannot opt out of paying for the
Commonhouse).  Clearly as well, paying for all basic infrastructure (roads,
utilities, etc) also is required of everyone.

A trickier situation arises when the decision is about something optional, but
it really affects everyone, not just those choosing to participate, so if one
Stands Aside, one is affected anyway.  A good example is streetlights.  I'm not
sure where this situation evolved to now, but at Nyland a while back, I
understand some residents wanted outdoor lighting (parking lots, etc).  The
people who didn't want them just couldn't Stand Aside, because they would be
equally subjected to the light, so they Blocked that decision.  Personally, I
feel one of the greatest attributes of a communitarian is Tolerance, but on some
things people do stand firm.  Where to draw the line is highly variable, should
be done with carefull thought toward the good of all, and in my opinion, quite
subjective.

In summary, one of the pillars of Geneva's Mission Statement is to support the
growth and developement of the individual (the opposite of Chairman Mao's
philosophy of community).  Therefor, by allowing people to Stand Aside and not
participate in some (not all) decisions, the feeling is the reins will be
loosened, and more creative freedom and energy will be available, which
ultimately will benefit all of us.

Buzz Burrell
Paonia, CO (currently)

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.