Cohousing-L Mailing List: Response to Rick's post - Sociocracy and blocking

[Diana Leafe Christian (diana]

Hello,

To respond to Rick's question, below, I think most cohousing  
communities do have a super-majority voting fallback (as often  
required by banks), but don't use it, out of the belief they'd be  
violating their principles if they did.

But here's why I'm really writing:

I believe it is a widely held belief that using consensus-with- 
unanimity (with no recourse if someone blocks) _helps_ a community. To  
quote Rick, below, "the learning and relationship-building that goes  
on in almost all cases benefits the community and the individuals in  
it."

I would love to believe that this particular decision-making method  
helps a community.

But I've rarely seen it.

In communities I've visited and sat in on meetings, in my own  
community, and in those I've been a consultant for who use consensus- 
with-unanimity-with-no-resource, I've often seen exhaustion,  
frustration, demoralization, and diminished meeting attendance.

I've seen people advocate, as Rick does below, that when someone  
blocks -- or, as is much more common, _threatens_ to block --  
community members should simply spend more time trying to deeply  
understand one another. As Rick advises, "to use the opportunity to  
strengthen relationships within the community."

I've rarely seen this.

Instead, I've usually seen that relationships  among community members  
just seem to get worse.

I always thought this was because people weren't _practicing_  
consensus correctly; they just needed to get more skilled. But now I  
don't think so.

Please consider the advice to "spend more time." This is possible and  
perhaps even enjoyable for people with lots of time, such as retired  
people or wealthy people, as they probably don't have full-time jobs.  
But can the average person with a job, especially when they're raising  
children, afford the long periods of patient listening -- often  to  
expressions of  inner emotional distress -- that this decision-making  
method often requires?

I don't think so. I think the idea that consensus-with-unanimity works  
well is based on the idea that people DO have the time and willingness  
to deeply listen to each other for long hours, like the devoutly  
religious Quakers who invited it in the 1600s did.

I don't think our modern-day community lives are much like those of   
deeply religious 17th century Quakers. I think we need a governance  
and decision-making method that is a much better fit for our current- 
day reality.

So what do cohousers and other communitarians who use a different  
method say?

“ . . .  Because of Sociocracy I sense that we have fewer meetings  
than other intentional communities, and we accomplish more during  
them, and we have more ease in the process.”
         —Debbie Ramsdell, Champlain Valley Cohousing Vermont (email  
to Gayatri Erlandson,
              Asheville Dynamic Governance Association)

“In the year since we formed our first socicratic circle at Lost  
Valley, much has improved here in our morale, our facilities, and our  
quality of life.”
	—Melanie Rios, Executive Director, Lost Valley Educational Center,  
Oregon, from article in
             Communities magazine, Winter 2011/2012

“Frankly, I think Sociocracy holds the best possibility of any  
governance method for dealing with matters as complex as creating  
intentional communities. More than an improvement upon or a step  
better than consensus, I think Sociocracy is a quantum leap better  
than any other decision-making format I’ve learned about or ever used  
previously.”
         —Larilee Suiter, Champlain Valley Cohousing, Vermont (in  
email to Gayatri Erlandson,
              Asheville Dynamic Governance Association)

        Thanks for reading this.
        Diana Leafe Christian


  1. Sociocracy and blocking (Richart Keller)
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2012 23:57:46 -0400
From: "Richart Keller" <richart.keller [at] gmail.com>
Subject: [C-L]_ Sociocracy and blocking

I wonder how many (and which) communities currently have consensus  
with no
recourse if someone blocks?

Whether or not they do have such recourse (and I suspect that most do,  
at
least on paper) in the rare cases where someone "blocks" an important
decision, it may be important for the community to spend the time giving
extra consideration to the concerns expressed for several reasons:

        1. to be clear that there is a thorough community-wide understanding
of the basis for the concern so that the outcome is well-
grounded--including in its rational and emotional dimensions,
        2. by such consideration, to acknowledge and respect the consensus
process, and
        3. to use the opportunity to strengthen relationships within the
community.

A healthy community should be a continuing, central goal in any
decision-making process.

As someone who has grown up with, excercised, and facilitated  
consensus and
consenus-like decision making, I have certainly experienced the  
frustration
and sometimes seemingly inordinate time required to make an important
decision.  At the same time, I know from experience that successful
communities are in it "for the long haul" and that the learning and
relationship-building that goes on in almost all cases benefits the
community and the individuals in it.  The pressures to make efficient
decisions are powerful, but we must not let them over-ride the movement
toward a peaceful and just world.

In community

Rick

Richart Keller, AICP
Pioneer Valley Cohousing
120 Pulpit Hill Road #25
Amherst, MA 01002
413-835-0011
401 486-2677 (cell)
(richart.keller [at] gmail.com)