Cohousing-L Mailing List: RE: Blocking consensus

[Ruddick, T.R. (RUDDICK]

I think I recall discussing this issue a couple of years ago.

Words are important. The term "blocking consensus" misrepresents the
process.  It implies that consensus is something that ought to happen, and
anyone who stops it is acting as an obstructionist.   Those are the wrong
words to use here.

Consensus is supposed to occur naturally as group members find ways to
compromise and agree on important issues.  Requiring consensus is supposed
to protect individuals from having to assent to the will of the majority
even if they abhor it, as generally happens in traditional parliamentary
processes.

The term "blocking" puts the onus on the individual who doesn't agree,
implying that the individual should be the one who changes.  The
responsibility to communicate, develop alternatives, and build consensus
belongs to the entire group.  It might be more fair (but still not true) to
come up with a term like "cramming consensus" to describe the enthusiastic
majority that wants a proposal to be implemented even if individuals harbor
strong objections.

I acknowledge that there are some people who revel in being difficult, in
obstructing group process, in playing power games, and in other ways
preventing the real process of consensus building from happening.  If you
want to lump those people together as "consensus blockers" then I might
agree to the term.  

But what Kay was talking about involved ethical guidelines for voicing real
objections; that's not consensus blocking, that's good communication.  I
would want people to voice serious objections for personal or community
reasons--and I don't see a strict dividing line between the two, either.



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