Cohousing-L Mailing List: Interpreting Sharon's" individual vs. group" statements

[Gail Holmes (gailholmes]

Diane, 

I'll be interested to hear what Sharon says but how I interpret her
"individual vs. group" statements seems different than yours.  Certainly
allowing one person's selfish ideas to take over a decision being made for
the whole group would not be healthy and no one would stay for long. What I
take from Sharon's thoughts is that when each individual feels included and
listened to in the decision making process they are happier people, have
less active or passive anger and work co-operatively with the whole vs.
against it. From what little I know about Sociocracy that seems to be the
common thread that runs through the design of their process.

I do not hear Sharon's words to mean give each individual what they want. I
DO hear ...give them respect and space to speak their minds without judging
them. Make them feel their values and beliefs are equally important to
everyone else's.  Many people hesitate to speak up out of fear of rejection
or they found it to be a useful survival skill when they were young and
still hold the belief subconsciously. The emotional and physical health of
each individual impacts the whole because they make up the whole. If one
person feels dismissed or invisible or disempowered that will create a weak
link in achieving a mission.  If they are given space and respect then they
will learn to give it back to the group. Things will flow. If they like red
and everyone else likes green it still needs to be "heard" and understood.
Maybe there is an interesting reason for it.


> Diane Simpson <coho [at] theworld.com>
> is the author of the message below.
> > 
> Hi all,
> 
> I don't believe the idea of a false dichotomy of individual-group holds
> up under closer scrutiny. While it is certainly true that the group
> does not exist without the presence of the individuals I can think of
> many situations in my own  cohousing group experience in which certain
> things came up for discussion that would only benefit one or perhaps
> two individuals. 

>From the sound of this statement below it sounds as though you already
understand this concept. I bet it is because you take the time to hear
everyone and include everyone's thoughts in coming to consensus. I believe
that is what's being said here. Sharon am I right or all wet?

> ...as the founder of the Jamaica Plain group, I had to
> adjust some of my "individualism" to the group in order for the group
> to grow. I couldn't continue to be at the forefront of every issue if
> the group was to be able to grow up and stand on its own two feet. And
> now, as I watch the progress of this group, I am just amazed at the  special
energy in the room when the group is there.

Leave off the "not" in the last sentence and I agree you .

> "The only productive group is one that can utilize the full strengths
 >of ALL the individuals within it." ...  If utilizing the full strengths
 >of ALL the individuals within it... means you're not utilize
> your full strengths, well, so be it
> 
Aren't you both saying the same thing? Is it just semantics? Can we see
making room for others as a path to utilizing your full strengths. When
others are learning what you already know you can be learning something new!
Gail

  Gail Holmes
 23 Linden RD
 Hartland, VT 05048
 802-436-1246
 gailholmes [at] cobbhill.org



> --Diane Simpson
> JP COHOUSING  617-524-6614
> P.O. BOX 420 BOSTON MASSACHUSETTS
> HTTP://WWW.JPCOHOUSING.ORG
> "The people who surround you define the qualify of your life."
> 
> 

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