Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: tipping point (was: alternatives to sanctions)

[Martin Sheehy (martinsheehy]

I find this discussion fascinating, as a medical manager of physicians. We in 
Physician Exec. roles say:" Changing physician behavior is like herding cats!.

Christine Johnson <manzjohnson [at] netzero.net> wrote:  Hans G. Ehrbar who 
wrote:

> Does this mean that we have to forget about all that touchy feely 
> consensus stuff, since there is no alternative to a
> policeman knocking at your door?

to which Sharon Villines responded:

>How did you get from sanctions to dropping consensus? Wouldn't 
sanctions, or I would prefer to call them consequences of choices,
> would be decided by consensus in a consensus community?
>And in this study, I think the most telling point is that only took a 
few games for everyone to switch the mode where only those who
>contributed reaped the rewards. This has nothing to do with sanctions.

Sharon's points are right on target. The argument that we choose 
either consensus or police(force) is of course, false. In the game, 
the consequences were clearly the result of prior behavior which 
allowed the participants who were paying attention to make the 
connections and change their behavior accordingly.

In social groups of any kind, the connections between behavior and its 
results are not obvious to everyone who is involved in the group. Too 
many intervening variables. Those who don't see the connections, or 
see them but choose to ignore them to advance their own interests, are 
the folks who make living in any kind of community sometimes unpleasant 
(from huge condo/townhomes complexes, to cohousing, to small 
intentional communities).

How is it that we influence members of a group to make the choice to 
contribute in rough proportion to what's gained through the association 
with the group? Can we influence people to comply with agreed upon 
rules in the absence of effective social pressure or sanctions? I 
don't think so. What would be the alternative?

I wonder if there is a tipping point in a cohousing community: for 
example, if some percentage of the owners simply do not care what 
other's wishes are or what others think of their behavior, does it 
happen that people who are the "contributors" finally limit their 
efforts to only that which is of immediate personal benefit?

At that tipping point then, it's just a matter of contracting for the 
work that must be completed in order to protect property values.

I wonder if there must be roughly comparable reciprocity for community 
to work the way we like to see cohousing described in the literature. 
Or maybe the literature describes an ideal to which we look to, to 
sustain us through the hours of meetings.

Christine Johnson
Stone Curves Cohousing
Tucson, AZ

_________________________________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at: 
http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/