Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: principle vs preference / Formal Consensus

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

On Mar 18, 2007, at 3:52 PM, Lynn Nadeau wrote:

> The tricky part of this process is one we haven't had to deal with in 
> either
> group: a block is only valid if based on "principle" rather than
> "preference."

I think this is a very hard motto to follow. One person's principle is 
another's preference. I often have difficulty with a similar 
distinction which is between an opinion and "the truth." Since I read 
broadly, including the NYTimes which gives me a lot of general 
background knowledge, I often consider things fact that those who are 
not familiar with anything discovered in the field in the last 20 
years, opinion. The arguers also tend to consider opinion irrelevant, 
even an educated opinion like "if you put that on top of that wall, the 
wall will collapse." Until the wall collapses it is an opinion.

> In general, of course, consensus is about what is best for
> the group, not just what YOU think is a great idea.

"Best for the group" is actually not the standard stated by any experts 
in consensus, although it often gets stated this way in everyday 
language. I've been working on a chart comparing what the major 
trainers say in their writings and it is closer to "the stated goals of 
the group." The goals/aims/objectives/needs/intentions as defined and 
stated by the group.

What is in the "best interests of the group" is something that each 
person could, without a stated goal, decide for themselves and thus 
will not necessarily come to the same decision.

> With more than 15 years of experience, at RoseWind we typically don't 
> call
> for consensus until things are well worked out. Potential blocks are in
> effect handled ahead of time, through discussion circles, emails, give 
> and
> take in various ways, seeking solutions all can consent to. Or lacking 
> that,
> we may drop a proposal.

My problem with this process is that so much gets done 'behind the 
scenes" and not everyone in the group can thus hear and understand what 
other people's concerns are. It also leaves the proposal open to 
manipulation. "Well this phrase doesn't really mean this, it means 
that," etc. Transparency in a behind the scenes process is hard to 
maintain and transparency is the easiest way to maintain integrity.

While addressing some concerns outside the meeting can be productive, I 
get very uneasy if full discussion of objections and their resolution 
doesn't come back to the group. Months later, I hear people saying, 
"Well, it was obvious that saying no to #1 meant saying no to #2 also" 
when #2 was never publicly discussed in the context of the proposal. 
You discover privately discussed assumptions that most of the group 
never heard and you start all over again.

When people give consent, it is important to know on what basis they 
are giving it. Objections receive a lot of attention but it is equally 
important that consent be just as clear.

> If a person themself set aside their dissent, realizing it wasn't about
> principle, that would work. But to have a block invalidated by the 
> rest of
> the group? Kind of like "consensus minus one" - I find it hard to 
> imagine
> that the dissenter would still feel part of the group, and could see 
> that
> being a prelude to losing a member. Anyone have experience of that 
> juncture?

In sociocracy there is no such thing as block, there are only 
objections. And objections have to be "paramount" and "argued". An 
objection would be stated as "If this decision is made, I won't be able 
to support the aims of the group because ..."

The arguments have to be reasonable and understandable to the group 
because otherwise they won't be able to amend the proposal to make it 
work for everyone. And "work for everyone" is defined as allowing or 
supporting everyone in working toward the aims of the group. The group 
exists because of a shared aim -- otherwise there is no group, only 
individuals.

The purpose of objections is to build a stronger proposal. A strong 
proposal is one that allows everyone in the group to support its aims 
even more strongly.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
http://www.sociocracy.info