Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: A consensus question.

[Monty Berman (mberman]

I was out the door, having read John's message below. But
an aspect of it stayed with me, and I've dragged myself
back to address it. First, though, I like his insight under his
"ministry" part---where he suggests giving attention to under-
lying reasons (agendas?) for those who find they are at 
odds with the will of the group.
        This actually segues into what I came back to address.
Having said the above, in another sense I'm leery about his
suggestion to check personal agendas at the door to the extent 
that this means giving up what is going on within one. 
I see consensus not as a compromise as much as
finding a way to feel good about getting what I need (not "want")
and meeting others' needs in the process.
        I feel cautious about thinking of consensus as only
the good of the group. The dynamic here for me is that the group
can be viewed as an aggregate of individuals, and there is always
the ongoing tension to meet the needs of both entities.

Monty Berman, First Resident Group, EcoVillage at Ithaca---
who continues to struggle with his own needs and doesn't quite
see the light at the end of the tunnel.

On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Michael John Omogrosso 
wrote:

> My heart goes out to you, Stuart.  I have been out for a few days in DC 
> at a community land trust confrenece so please excuse if this topic has 
> been thoroughly resolved.  In consensus everyone must compromise--lovers 
> haters and nincompoops alike.  To restate a basic principle, consensus is 
> the introduction of an issue/idea into the trust of the group.  All 
> possession and attachment of that introduced element must then be 
> abandoned to the group.  When we enter into the relm of that sacred trust 
> of group consensual processing, it is quite like checking your guns at 
> the door--all personal agendas must be supressed with only the agenda of 
> determining what is best for the group used as a measure of progress.
> 
> Can we achieve this?  Minimally perhaps.  We still must rely on our 
> experiences.  This is why even the most consistant users of true 
> consensus find retreat time with the group to develop and reconfirm trust 
> and revisit the ideals of consensus is a vital part of the commitment to 
> the consensus process.  
> 
> It may help to use a "vibes watcher" during 
> meetings who stays out of the discussion and the circle to assess if 
> people are able to let go of their personal attachments.
> 
> Another tool is that of ministry.  People may be hanging up the process 
> for other reasons (loneliness, or a need to feel heard, or other home 
> problems) and so one or more folks should think on the pattern of 
> disruption and try to attend to the person or click's real reason for 
> blocking or presenting other barriers to a decision.
> 
> Hey, cats and dogs must be the greatest cause for desention in community 
> I know of. 
> 
> Good luck
> 
> Michael Omogrosso 
> East Blair Housing Cooperative
> Eugene, Oregon
>