Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Consensus and ideology

[Racheli&John (jnpalme]

** Reply to note from "Robyn Williams" <pov [at] iinet.net.au> Mon, 24 Dec 2001 
09:58:44 +0800
>From Racheli

Sharon asked:   
> > Is sustainability part of your mission
> > statement or other expressed values?
>   
> Well spotted Sharon.
> This is why having clear, agreed and visible statements of
> purpose/mission/vision/intention/values etc is so important.

I started responding yesterday, but somehow didn't get around
to completing my response, so I'll try again...

Yes, our basic documents include a statement regarding a 
desire to "walk lightly on the earth", or something to that effect.
The goal to have an organic community garden, as well as 
building the physical structures in an environmentally responsible
fashion have been part of our advertising for new members.

On the other hand, our mission statement also says that we are
not a group based on "ideology", which some interpret to mean
that nobody should bring their personal "ideology"/values/etc.
to decision making.  (Yet the mission statement also states that
we encourage diversity, which I read to mean that we should
embrace our differences, rather than hide them in our respective
closets, but other people read it differently, I'm sure).
What I'm getting at is, that our mission statement and statement of
goals are ambiguous, and I was told by one of the people who
was part of the group when they put those together that the 
ambiguity was *intentional*.  My conjecture is that it's so for
two reasons: 1- So as to attract as many people as possible (the 
usual cohousing dilemma, of having to sell houses), since everyone
will see in the documents what they want to see.  2-  There were
probably disagreements within the group at the time of the 
crafting of the documents, and different positions were included,
to keep everyone happy.  
I think there is another factor, which is that many people really
don't understand that all points of view include values, judgements,
ideology at their very basis.  It really isn't possible to make decisions
without relying on a value system.  There are those people who 
believe that "the facts are the facts", out there for everyone who's
willing to be "objective" to see and grasp, and that those of us
who bring our "ideologies" violate the process.
In this context, mainstream opinions are viewed as value-free.
In the case of the play-structure, deciding on the basis of what's
the cheapest; most easily available; sufficiently attractive; has
"high play-value" - were seen by some as non-ideological 
considerations.  Saying that we should buy a play-structure 
which doesn't support a company which logs old-growth was
deemed as bringing in an "ideology".
I'd like to stress that it was understood all along that there
are other options out there.  It was even understood and acknowledged
by all the people on the task force that a few systems we looked
at were not far apart in terms of "play value" (god, I hate that
term!:)) , and that they all could live with other systems, yet - 
they chose to keep up the fight, because they thought that giving
up on redwood would be "giving in", and would entail allowing 
"a tyranny of the minority", or that it would mean settling for "the 
lowest common denominator" (whatever the hell that means). 
This, of course, is not how consensus should be done.
I feel that if redwood was the only option, both I and the other 
woman would have stood aside.  But it was clear all along
that there are other systems...
I agree with Robyn that this has to do with competitive behavior,
not with cooperating in problem-solving the way it should be done.

BTW -  The task force, eventually, has chosen to recommend a Cedar
structure.  I will not block it, but will probably stand aside.  IMO it's
silly to have a wood structure outdoors in Tucson (which is what
every local professional we talked to said)... and there are Trex
structures, made totally out of waste materials (plastic bags
and sawdust) which would have been higher on the list of 
responsible environmental behavior, and would have served the
kids just as well.

R.  (Who is still losing sleep over this).

   
> Over and over, and most painfully within my community, I witness arguments
> that rise from an assumption that if you ain't with me, then yer agin' me.
> I despair when I see the energy we expend on bickering about one solution
> while a universe of alternative outcomes is ignored.  As Sharon said,
> "My first reaction is that the swing set decision (as presented) is reduced
> to too few factors. If the options have been fully explored there will be
> more than two options or variables for the decision."



_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l