Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Who is providing workshops on concensus in cohousing?

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

On 30 Mar 2012, at 10:05 PM, Don Benson wrote:

> I find it Interesting to think about desired outcomes regarding consensus, 
> and where to start.  Is our objective to learn and agree to use a consensus 
> in decision making events or in developing a consensus culture.  And how will 
> one influence the other?

I find this to be one of the most important questions ever asked on 
Cohousing-L. Maybe the most important, next to how to get a construction loan. 
And I don't remember it ever being asked. So kudos to Don Benson and Trillium 
Hollow.

I've put off responding until I had considered it and had time to write. And 
now I'm still feeling flummoxed about where to begin. Perhaps because the 
question itself is all revealing. To say more is gilding the lily.

For me the importance of the consensus culture—I've described it as consensus 
community in explaining cohousing—is the most important. It's what is lost when 
we focus the discussion of consensus on whether consensus means all-but-one or 
legitimate "blocks" only. All that is to ask the wrong question. The real 
question is:

What is the point of using consensus in decision-making?

The sociocratic answer is "to create a community in which everyone feels that 
they are an equal member. Not that they will be "heard" but that they will be 
able to function fully and freely without ignoring their own needs, because the 
majority wants something else or they aren't as smart or as pretty or as rich 
as someone else. That your opinions and desires will be addressed as fully as 
my opinions and desires. 

A Methodist minister in my community recently described this as happening in 
her church community even though they use majority vote. The vote relates only 
to how they move forward with an operational decision. The discussion and 
examination of the issues is done with full consideration and concern for each 
person. The attitude, the culture determines that before the vote and after the 
vote we are concerned about the opinions and desires of each person. "Yes, we 
decided to ….. but we also realize that that eliminates the opportunity to ….. 
and this is upsetting to some people and we will continue to look for ways to 
address that." And they do. 

The caring and concern is as great, and often greater, than it is in our 
consensus decision-making when we begin splitting hairs instead of addressing 
feelings of inequality. Remember separate but equal? Not exactly consensus. 
Allowing people to vote "no" can be addressing their needs as long as everyone 
understands why, cares why, and goes forward remembering and respecting the 
"no" and what it means.

And by "caring" I don't mean we all have to love each other or express our 
sympathy for the next 6 weeks or 6 days after someone loses or gives up on an 
argument. I mean understanding the effects of a decision on everyone in the 
community and considering ways to address those effects.

In sociocracy, consent is understood as what is necessary to maintain 
equivalence, the state of being equal in the community. Consent is necessary to 
ensure harmony. Harmony is necessary to ensure effectiveness in relation to the 
aim of the organization, the person, the heart. Harmony is the aim of 
sociocracy.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines, Washington DC
"The truth is more important than the facts." Frank Lloyd Wright