Re: Spirituality and Consensus in Cohousing.
From: Dave Crawford (davecsonic.net)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 12:59:56 -0500
------------------------------
Stuart Staniford-Chen    (stanifor [at] cs.ucdavis.edu) wrote on October 10:

>>
I frequently find it annoying when others... assume that I'm along on the same 
spiritual trip.... [At] the closing for the whole conference ... there was an 
assumption that everyone would want to do that.  ... [consider] that ... people 
are going along with your ritual to avoid an unpleasant scene rather than 
because they are genuinely with you.  Is that what you want?
Stuart.
<<

And Velma Kahn (VELMA [at] CSN.NET) wrote on October 13:
>>

[We on the}RMCA committee ... wanted [the closing ceremony] to be a surprise 
...  I apologize ...  that we didn't announce it earlier and frame it as 
optional. ...  I'd like to note for the atheists and agnostics amongst us that 
the regulated absence of spirituality is as much oppression for those of us for 
whom that's the center of life as is the forced participation in for you.  
<<

 ---   ---  Ritualism, Voluntary Consensus, and Cohousing.  ---   --- 

Some good things have been said here on the topic of spiritual rituals, but I 
want to add two crucial concepts that are missing or mangled.  

First, many fail to see that it's utter, inexcusable religious intolerance to 
assume that a meeting-closing ritual you may posit to be "spiritual" --since 
it's, say, truly multicultural and cool-- is on a plane higher than my 
preferred activity.  This I call the "I might know diddely, too" rule of 
religious tolerance.  

Miss that rule, assume superiority, and you'll be pushing your superior 
religious activities on me; that would be the "spinach" John Hunter rejected 
when he started this topic.  

Second --and incredibly for a cohousing discussion-- there's _no_ talk about 
ways to get consent or consensus about rituals.  Except to see if anyone flees 
the room, defying all the forces of peer-group pressure.  Sounds like a 
social-psychology lab experiment to this one-time grad student.  

 That kind of "consensus" is just a code word for knuckling under.  I'm through 
excusing the ritualists from carefully seeking consensus just because their 
blood runs hot on "spiritualty."  Do we now need a new topic --"voluntary 
consensus"?  

When we start with spiritual pushiness and add group pressure, we may find 
folks like Stuart (and me, if I'd been there) going along, unknowingly putting 
group pressure on each other.  I believe it should stop now; I'll stop going 
along now in my group.

I hope all we cohousers would _want_ to quit kidding ourselves about consent 
and consensus regarding core beliefs or practices.  My core is a bit unique.  
Bet yours is too.  But at many "closings" a posited "spirituality" is riding 
into cohousing on waves of group pressure.  Isn't that an affront to our 
maturity and an attack on our independence of heart  and mind?  I'm more and 
more finding it so.  

Like Stuart, I've often wondered why tolerant, pan-religious folks often 
"assume" ("presume," I'd say) so much. I still credit the good "intent" many 
cite; playing out various "spiritual traditions" as expressed in "ritual" seems 
like a very open-hearted activity.  And after all why shouldn't consenting 
adults explore ways to better connect?  

But consent isn't being carefully sought out.  The problem is, when it comes to 
"ritual," too many sensitive, spiritual folks are assuming that something they 
posit to be "spiritual" is what their cohousing group should do --period.  
Folks not interested can just sit it out.  

And we shouldn't be surprised.  Because most folks I'll call "spiritually 
expressive" cohousers beleve "spirituality" (meaning for cohousing public 
"ritual") is an unquestionable good.  Perhaps they forget that unquestioning 
faith makes a "true believer."  In any event, objections to ritual make many 
feel rejected or even wronged.  Any wonder Stuart, just for one, fears an 
"unpleasant scene"?  

And Velma, you do paint quite a 'scene' when you assume that "atheists and 
agnostics" want to impose a "regulated absence of spirituality" on you, to whom 
spirituality is "the center of life."  Dear Velma, please notice that yours is 
the exact argument made for outright prayer (beyond silence) in school!  Can 
you be sure your activity is more spiritual than is my simple speech --or 
silence?  Or my preference to not have any "ritual" this time?  

Your apology, Velma, for not making the spiritual ritual "clearly" doesn't 
really help at all.  You consider optional to mean do it or "consider the 
conference concluded" before the close.  And, even though a member of the RMCA 
conference planing committee, you indicate you could never consider a closing 
activity that wasn't one you'd call "spiritual."  There are many closing 
activities not posited to be "spiritual" that are worthy of cohousing; why not 
consider one of these for the future?  The core problem for you is, as you 
finally say, you are so centered on spirituality that forgoing "spiritual" 
activity would be as "oppressive" as "forced participation in spiritual 
practice" is for our atheists / agnostics.  

Holy cohousers, Bagman!  Why is _nobody_ talking about consent or consensus?  
Count is 1 (one) for the string "consen" --for this entire topic.  Well, 'till 
I limp out of here, just color me an atheist / agnostic bum in lovely 
coho-land.  

Let's all read carefully the Oct. 13 post (by a writer I won't name) in which 
the word "consensus" does appear.  It pretty much says spirituality should be 
required of cohousers, just like "committment to consensus."  Note that despite 
these assertions, it makes no call for spiritual leaders to seek consensus.  It 
goes in part:
>>
Nearly ALL cohousing groups have selection criteria they apply to new members 
... such as a commitment to consensus decision making ... [thus] enforcing 
substantial uniformity in world view.  ... Why ... consider religion to be so 
fundamentally different from other selection criteria that have a similar 
narrowing effect on diversity?  
<<

Well, I for one consider an enforced narrowing of spiritual "diversity" --and 
let's be clear, we'd be "narrowing" out the non-ritualists-- to be religious 
intolerance, that's why.

Being perhaps 'less centered on spirituality' than some (Or am I spiritually 
off-center?  Surely I'm not a less spiritual being?)  I simply want prayer, or 
dancing, etc., to be truly optional --not pushed by group pressure at official 
cohousing functions.  

And I don't find it hard to think of ways to check on consent outside the group 
pressure present at, say, a cohousing "closing." Check in advance.  Propose 
rituals tentatively.  Ask privately.  Have group members do consensual 
discussions in small groups or pairs.  

So why don't spiritually expressive cohousers ask consent, on "ritual"?  

The failure to carefully seek consent smells and tastes like intolerance 
--oddly, from the very people who I believe sincerely want to "embrace all 
traditions."  But I think the contradiction starts when pan-traditional 
ritualists look ahead two steps but not three.  They end up thinking --like 
old-time zealots-- they've got a unquestionably good thing in "ritual": 
  Step 1) Since I celebrate "all" religious traditions, this can't hurt anyone. 
            (Honoring many spiritual traditions prevents discrimination.) 
  Step 2) Accessing spiritual energy this way can only add to our well-being.
            (The many spiritual rituals will make everyone's spirit more 
healthy.) 

Conclusion: there should be some "ritual" -- always.  Why even ask?  It's an 
unalloyed good.  

But wait, it's just not true that we embrace all spiritual traditions.  Anyone 
for "respecting" that good old Bavarian Christian race-hate, or polygamy, 
misogyny, etc.?  I thought not.  

If we'd only pay attention to how queasy some souls can rightly feel when 
"spiritual traditions" come riding on a wave of group pressure, we would see 
the need to think further. 

John Hunter started this topical thread by noting that even informal rituals 
--when supported by group pressure-- are "spinach": plain old religious 
force-feeding.  Seems we needed reminding of that fine American and humanist 
tradition of "no spiritual traditions please." But, still, it seems many of our 
ritualists aren't focusing in on the issue of consent.  

So I'll spell out a third step for thinking about ritual: 
  Step 3) Well, we really don't celebrate "all" traditions.  Forgot 
non-religion, too. 
             (Ours is one brand of spiritualism, not the "all-way" to 
spirituality.  
               And so ritual isn't the new, improved "one-way" to god.)   

Revised conclusion on "ritual": any spiritual expression is a matter of highly 
personal taste and should be _really_ optional.  In the future, we'll propose 
ritual only when voluntary consent is evident.  

A practical beginning, dear ritualist friends, would be to let go of the 
assumption that every event should include some kind of spiritual ritual.  And 
I'll repeat, check-in on the subject should be done away from group pressure, 
as in small break-out groups or pairs.  The result should be interesting --and 
we'd be applying an honest consensual process to "ritual" in cohousing.  

 --- Dave Crawford ---  Member of the "Stepford" group for last 1 1/2 years.  
           davec [at] sonic.net                (Group name is a pseudonym.)

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.