Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Disinclination to cooperate

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

On Jun 21, 2008, at 12:33 PM, John Faust wrote:

> When you buy into a community, you buy into its vision/mission/ 
> principles.
> Unfortunately, these are often pro forma documents--symbols of
> high-mindedness rather than practical guidelines for community life.

This is very well said. Ours so vague no one could disagree with it.  
One thing I think would help our community define who we are -- we  
never talk about this -- would be to define who we are not and then  
turn it around.

There is a process that I've used in workshops to help people change  
their lives called Bitch and Switch. What most upsets you and what  
changes could you make so you would be happy. The "trick" to this  
exercise is defining clearly what the thing is that makes you unhappy.  
Once you define it clearly enough the solution just pops up.

So in cohousing, it would be what are the things the community bitches  
about, and what could it do to change it? I think doing this exercise  
as a group in order to write a clear vision or mission statement would  
work well. It could certainly help us if we ever sat down to do it.

Another thing that might also help is to separate the Vision, Mission,  
and Aim into separate statements. I don't think this is specific to  
Sociocracy but it is a principle I learned there.

VISION: A good Vision is like a dream. It's inspiring. It's uplifting.  
It's what keeps people moving when things are rough. Most of our  
Mission statements are really Vision statements. The lofty thoughts.  
This statement may never change for the life of the organization.

MISSION: A Mission statement speaks to what the group wants to create.  
What it hopes to do. What it wants to feel. Since cohousing builds  
neighborhoods, what are the characteristics of a neighborhood that you  
object to and how would your neighborhood look like? The mission is  
reviewed every 2-5 years.

AIM: Aim statements need to be more specific in order to be realized.  
It's defined by making the non-tangible goals of the Vision and  
Mission tangible. The community needs to describe it the same way a  
shoe manufacturer would describe the kind of shoe they were going to  
produce -- then it will be much more likely to be achieved. You need  
to be able to see it and feel it. Aims are reviewed at least once a  
year.

Aims are redefined the most often, and for new communities probably  
very often. There is a different aim in the recruitment phase, design  
phase, in construction phase, etc. I find that our community doesn't  
focus enough on one aim until it is achieved. Redesigning the  
commonhouse so we have active play space. Working on the meal program  
until it works smoothly and the membership is happy with it. One team  
works on an aim but then runs into roadblocks when it takes the  
solution to the whole community.

Obviously the aims will overlap -- a community will still be  
recruiting during design and construction but by then the recruiting  
process would be defined and working smoothly. Once one aim is  
mastered, another one can become the focus. But if everyone is  
focusing on different (unclearly defined) aims, the effort is  
diffused. With a clear aim, even if one member is cleaning the floor,  
the floor cleaner can understand their work as necessary to support  
the over all aim of having a good meal program. It's a question of  
harnessing the energy of each person by strengthening their focus.

> Interestingly, one of the better thought out (to me) consensus
> guidlines<http://www.consensus.net/ocac2.html>argues that "[a] concern
> must be based upon the principles of the group to
> justify a block to consensus".

One of the things that absolutely drives me nuts is when I hear  
someone say, "But you have to think about the what's best for the  
community!"

What community? My community or yours? The person who says this seems  
to think they know what the community is and what is in its best  
interests. Too often this is a version of majority rule. "Everyone  
else wants this so you have to think of them" as if "everyone else"  
defines the community.

In sociocracy the standard for consent or objection is different: If  
this proposal is passed, or this action taken, can I personally do my  
work in the community? Does it limit my personal ability to be happy  
here?

This brings decisions down to a tangible level. I make decisions based  
my life in the community, not an abstract definition of community. I  
take responsibility for my own happiness or my tolerance for the  
action. And expect that others will do the same -- not impose their  
definitions of what is good or bad for me, or define what I have to do  
that is in the best interests of their definition of community.

Objections can also be made at the level of the mission or vision --  
"Our mission is to create a better neighborhood, not to sell cookies.  
How does opening a bakery support our mission to build a  
neighborhood?" There might be instances in which it would, but in  
others it might be a tangent and a distraction that would ultimately  
obstruct the mission.

Or an objection based on an aim: "Our team's aim is to create a  
composting system, not to plant flowers on the green. If we have  
accomplished our aim, we should redefine a new one before moving  
on." (In sociocratic governance, over all team responsibilities are  
defined by a general coordinating team or by the whole membership if  
there is no such team.)

It might  be interesting to define general cohousing Vision and  
Mission statements. And some sample Aim statements.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
Coauthor with John Buck of We the People
Consenting to a Deeper Democracy
A Guide to Sociocratic Principles and Methods
ISBN: 9780979282706
http://www.sociocracy.info