Consensus – A HandbookThe Consensus Education Packet was written in 1978 as a way to help anti-nuclear groups work together and make decisions more effectively. It was an outgrowth of the Clamshell Alliance, but it is useful for any small group. It was originally published in mimeograph form and scanned onto a computer file in 2005. If you find any typos, please let us know. The author of this packet prefers to remain nameless. It is not copyrighted. People are free to reprint any and all sections of the handbook (either the complete text of a section, or an abridged version), and they are free to make stylistic alterations for purposes of clarity if they desire, but they should not alter the content (i.e. significantly change the meaning of the passages they are reprinting) without checking first and getting permission. If you would like to reprint any part, you are free to do so; please attribute it to Resources for Organizing and Social Change (formerly INVERT), 161 Stovepipe Alley, Monroe, ME 04951, (207) 525-7776 CONSENSUS EDUCATION PACKET(Written in 1978, republished and slightly updated in 2005)
I. What is Consensus? II. Objections
III. Macro–consensus IV. How to use the process V. Affinity VI. Group process VII. Membership VIII. Ideals of non–violence IX. Common process problems
Please send in your comments, suggestions, criticisms, etc., if you feel so moved. Remember that truth is a continuing revelation––what was right for this edition may prove wrong for the future in the light of new truth. The idea behind this packet is to help provide a clear common understanding of what consensus is, how it works, etc. An attempt has been made to make this packet as complete as possible, although there are still sections that have been left out or that need to be made more concrete. The packet is designed for use by interested people; either as a self–education tool or as a resource for workshops in consensus. This edition draws very heavily on the original Quaker concepts of consensus. If you are turned off by religious language, perhaps you can help find ways to separate God from consensus. (If you are turned on by religion in the packet, perhaps you can help translate it for people who don't appreciate it as much.) Whatever your thoughts or reactions, it would be nice to hear from more people about consensus. For additional copies, or to get in touch, write: Resources for Organizing and Social Change, 161 Stovepipe Alley, Monroe, ME 04951, (207) 525-7776, rosc@psouth.net. I. What is Consensus?Consensus evolved from the meeting process of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). It is an attempt to relate as a group in a non-violent way. Successful use of a consensus process depends on people understanding the idea and wanting to use it. Although this booklet is at attempt to set down some of the ideas of consensus in concrete terms, consensus has always been more an attitude than a set of rules. There are many possible ways to run meetings in accordance with these ideals and attitude, just as there are many different possible majority rule processes. However, it is not very practical to operate by more than one set of rules at a time. The consensus process differs from most other group processes in that it is a group effort to determine truth rather than a contest between opposing sides. It is marked by its problem–solving nature––the constant aim when differences arise to find a "third way" that all parties find genuinely uniting. This is appropriate, because the consensus process itself grew as a "third way" out of the dilemma of how to work as a group without surrendering either to authoritarian control or to individualistic anarchy. The two ideals that form the cornerstones of consensus are:
From these two central ideals, a number of other important ideals flow, including: non-violence; community; equality; simplicity (which includes dedication to truth); and realism. These are dealt with more under Roots of Consensus below. Under consensus, the group takes no action that is not consented to by all members. Members speak for themselves, out of their own experience. Each member also recognizes that acts affecting others or involving others are a group rather than individual responsibility, and shares those decisions with the others involved. A fundamental right of consensus is for all persons to be able to express themselves in their own words and of their own will; a fundamental responsibility of consensus is to assure others of their right to speak and be heard. Here is a set of rules for a consensus process:
The following is taken from "The Quaker Method of Reaching Decisions" by Elton Trueblood, from the book Beyond Dilemmas. Four elements are listed as basic to the successful use of a consensus process: (1)group solidarity; (2)the expectation of corporate guidance ("corporate here refers to working together as a group rather than as individuals; it has nothing to do with big business); (3)all present may share in the deliberation of the group; and (4)the "sense of the meeting" is the basis of decision. (1)Group solidarity is assumed in the use of the Quaker method. The group is not of any specified number, though normally it is small enough so that it does not seem like a "mass meeting". Perhaps the average number is forty or fifty. It is expected that these persons who make up the group shall already have many experiences and convictions in common. They are bound together by affection for each other and by adherence to a common faith. Frequently, many of them are neighbors in a single community. Ideally the fellowship is intimate, so that the various members really care about each other. There are many Quaker groups in which. this is lacking, and when it is conspicuously lacking, the entire method breaks down. (2)The expectation of corporate guidance is central to the mood of the Quaker gathering. Friends have a strong conviction, when differences arise, that there is a right way and that this may well be shown to them if they are sufficiently sensitive. This is why decision is often postponed when there is a marked division in the group. If there is a live possibility of finding a way which will convince the entire group of its rightness, we are foolish to be satisfied with makeshifts or compromises. The very unwillingness to accept low standards is an important factor in any consensus and the spirit of expectancy is itself creative of what is expected. In view of these considerations we can see how similar the mood of the Quaker discussion is to that of worship and how alien to the debating mood. The debater seeks to win, but the worshiper seeks to listen and to share. Though the problems faced are often those having to do with the practical aspects of life, they are approached in the spirit of prayer and devotion. Secular matters are to be decided in a spiritual atmosphere, or, what is much the same, we are to renounce the secular conception entirely. It is perfectly consistent with the Quaker consensus method for someone to vocalize prayer in the midst of ordinary deliberations. Often, when a problem is particularly difficult, especially when there are strong sympathies on opposite sides, someone will rise and suggest that the entire assembly give up speaking or arguing and join in a time of quiet waiting on God. It has often been true that this has brought unity. Sometimes a new idea comes out of the quiet waiting that is different from both ideas for which there has been contention, an idea to which both parties can agree. Ideally the group decisions should deal with all kinds of problems in practical life. Among Friends they have long dealt with marriage. The persons wishing to marry present their intentions to their group and seek the approbation of the group. If the approbation is forthcoming the group finally witnesses to the vows of the couple and the marriage is an accomplished fact. (3)All present may share in the deliberation of the group, regardless of age, sex, or education. In many gatherings for discussion participation is based upon the holding of office or being elected as a delegate, but Friends, from the beginning, have adopted a platform of radical democracy. It is true that representatives to Quarterly and Yearly Meetings of Friends are appointed, but the representatives have no superior status and the appointment is made merely to ensure adequate attendance. It is not expected that there will be any onlookers at a meeting of this kind, but that all will be participators, either actual or potential. This general participation, on the part of ordinary persons, raises the average interest and thus makes a situation in which exceptional genius is likely to occur. A body made up of the rank and file is strikingly different from one made up of delegates or of those whose religion is in any sense professional. In the words of Barclay, none is to be excluded, "whether married, or a tradesman, or a servant." Thus there may be a note of reality which is quite lacking in assemblies made up of those who have had ordination or belong to a special succession. Sometimes the unlearned have valuable insights which great learning tends to hinder. (4)The "sense of the meeting" is the basis of decision, rather than a division into majority and minority. This sense of the meeting is practical unanimity, and failure to arrive at it is usually the occasion for postponement. Each group has a "clerk," a person appointed to fill the double office of chair and secretary. The clerk is appointed, not to guide the discussion, but to make a faithful record of what the real convictions of the group are. The clerk's main qualification is sensitive-ness to what others think. When the group is already in the mood akin to worship, which is described above, a subject is presented for consideration, often by means of some written communication which has come to the clerk's desk. No one is prodded to speak and all wait quietly until someone rises and makes a suggestion regarding the problem at hand. This will be the occasion for a contribution from some other person. It might be supposed that, with such freedom, there would be several trying to speak at once. Actually, however, the general note of high seriousness is a more effective check on such tendencies than any external rule could be, and the note of reality is strengthened by the absence of the barren formality of parliamentary rules of order. Often, as various persons speak freely, it becomes evident that there is a marked division in the group. If this continues, the clerk makes no minute, but often suggests that the group might well turn to another matter. Normally, however, the very freedom and sobriety of the discussion lead each participator to some new position which is genuinely uniting. Then the clerk, when the clerk thinks the time has come, makes a minute, stating what the clerk conceives the group conviction to be. The clerk sometimes makes errors of judgment, but remarkably seldom is any criticism of this kind made. The whole setting helps the clerk to rise above ordinary capacity. This interpretation of the sense of the meeting, made without hurry at the clerk's desk, often receives some verbal modification from voluntary suggestions made when it is read, and sometimes the substance is modified, but ordinarily the judgment of the clerk is accepted as a valid statement of the situation. It is understood that the clerk has considered the spiritual experience of those who have spoken, but has not counted heads nor judged by official positions held. Above all, it is understood that the clerk is recording the judgment of the group as a group and not the judgment of isolated individuals. It is known that decisions are reached jointly which never could have been reached separately. Clerks cannot get the sense of the meeting by calling members on the telephone and asking their opinions, as is sometimes done in committee work. Friends expect a creative development of thought as men and women search together. The experience of an early stage of the discussion in which the differences are overcome by a deeper understanding occurs so often that Friends expect it. The point is that they wait for this culmination. If a vote were taken in the early stages there might be a fairly large minority which would henceforth look upon itself as the defeated party, with attendant hard feelings. The Quaker method is calculated to discourage the development of party spirit within the group. Then the discussion is not devoted to the winning of a party victory, but to the ascertainment of the truth. This method of decision thus described is closely allied to pacifism as a method of life. Pacifism is more than mere refusal to participate in war, and is a method by which people can live in all circumstances including the circumstance of group decision. Pacifism means the use of love and persuasion as against force and violence. The overpowering of a minority by calling for a vote is a kind of force, and breeds the resentment which keeps the method of force from achieving ultimate success with persons. "You have not converted a man", wrote John Morley, "because you have silenced him." The Roots of Consensus The consensus process evolved from the early Quaker method for reaching a "sense of the meeting". Like other concepts, original meanings have become obscured and distorted in the passing of time. There is nothing sacred or binding about origins. On the other hand, there is a certain value in knowing what one is talking about; and understanding the history and evolution of the consensus process is part of the way one can learn about consensus. Certainly, no amount of reading can ever replace personal experience in leading to understanding; but the arrogance of experience needs to be tempered sometimes by the humility of knowing what others have gone through. Listing and describing Quaker beliefs is a difficult task, for many of the same reasons that describing consensus is. There are certain general principles, called Testimonies, that most Friends are in general agreement on. One of the underlying beliefs, though, is that each person must determine their beliefs for themself, and that the reality of these beliefs is more important than appearances. Therefore, there is no dogma, no official checklist of beliefs that a person can go down and say, okay, I accept this, so now I'm one of you. There is no official book of doctrine, although each meeting has a copy of Faith and Practice put out by its Yearly Meeting which contains some thoughts on the various Testimonies which can be used as guides for people seeking internal understanding. The organization pattern for the Religious Society of Friends was written down by George Fox in 1668. The basic unit is the meeting for worship––a group of people who choose to worship together on a regular basis . Business is conducted through the process we have come to call consensus at a series of levels. The first level is a group called the Monthly Meeting. This is a gathering (usually monthly) of the local Meeting(s) to discuss business. Only at this level does individual membership apply. The different Monthly Meetings in a region form a Quarterly Meeting; and the Quarterly Meetings in turn work together through a Yearly Meeting. Through this process, Friends seek to reach consensus (a state of unity) as individual meetings and as a larger body. The consensus process was created as an ingenious way out of a long-standing dilemma. At the time the movement started, England was in a state of religious turmoil. There were many sects springing up in opposition to the traditional authoritarian churches. The early Quakers believed that each person should be in control of their own life and determine their own truth; but they were afraid of the individualistic anarchy of groups like the Ranters, which made individual will supreme, and allowed no curb on individual fanaticism. Neither external control, nor unbridled individualism, were what they were looking for. They wanted some way to move from individual Truth, which had to be the basis of their process but which was dangerously fallible, to a recognition of the underlying larger Truth.To put the dilemma simply: our actions must be based on individual "openings" (perceptions of Truth); but how are we to distinguish genuine truth from errors that creep in due to our imperfections, when two "truths" come into conflict? The answer was a careful balance of group and individual. "The novel feature of all these meetings", penned Rufus Jones (Quakers in the American Colonies, P. 140), "from lowest to highest, was the group-spirit which prevailed in them. Each individual believed in divine illumination and spiritual guidance...the light within was the beginning and end of faith. But it was plain to them all that individuals sometimes erred and missed the Guide, or, as an ancient minute says, "ran out of their measure and brought death instead of life!" It would not do...to call people to follow their inward light, and then to treat them as atoms and leave them to go their individual way according to the suggestion of inward impulse, which might be from above and might also be from below. They went to work with fine insight and with wise instinct to mass their guidance and to make their spiritual wisdom a corporate affair. Every religious meeting they held was supposed to be held in the Light...and the exercises of it were supposed to move in response to the will of the spirit, and each member found their own particular part and place by being organic with the whole. So, too, with the business of Monthly, Quarterly, and Yearly Meetings. Each decision was reached by taking the 'sense' of judgment of the whole meeting, and each such conclusion was supposed to be under divine guidance, and was arrived at only in the unity of the body. "From the first to last the group was the unit, and the individual found life and leading in the Life and Light of the formative spiritual group." Above all there is a belief in something good, or right––variously called Truth, the Light, God; Christ, or by many other names, depending on the person. There are two central convictions (listed by Elton Trueblood as towering above all others):
These two points are sometimes combined into the idea, variously expressed. of "that of God in every person." Some implications of this belief for consensus:
There are many implications which follow from that basic belief of something good in every person. Several of these are given more emphasis, in the form of "Testimonies." Four of the Testimonies are: 1.Nonviolence. "Pacifism might be called creative peaceableness. Spontaneous pacifism should arise in the meeting for worship for there is no authoritarian leadership coercing the meetings to follow a prearranged program, no hymns are sung to constrain an individual to express beliefs which are not experienced, and no written creed exists to impress belief. In the meeting for business there is theoretically no coercion of a minority by a majority, nor the reverse, Peaceableness exists as a positive power by which an inner appeal is made to the best that is in us, rather than as an external pressure by forces from outside us. This must include that kind of love and understanding which integrates separate and conflicting elements into a higher unity." (H. Brinton, Quaker Education in Theory & Practice, page 26) 2.Community, "Community is present in the attempt of the meeting to become a unified, closely integrated group of persons which is not just a collection of separate individuals, but a living whole." (Brinton, p. 26) 3.Equality. "Equality is present in the meeting in the equal opportunity for all to take part in the workshop or business regardless of age, sex, or official position." (Brinton, p. 27) 4.Simplicity. "Simplicity has had various meanings at different times in Quaker history. In general it means the absence of superfluity. It has often had the broader connotations of sincerity, integrity, and practicality and consistency. Simplicity of speech meant the use of simple, direct statements unadorned with elaborate figures of rhetoric or strained attempts at eloquence. Judicial oaths, implying two standards of truth–telling, were not in accordance with the Simplicity of Truth...As one fixed price for an article of merchandise was more direct than haggling over the price, Quaker merchants initiated the one–price system. (Brinton, p. 27 and 30) There is one more feature that should be mentioned. It is not a belief so much as an attitude or spirit in which the other beliefs are to be treated. This is the idea––call it realism or way of life––that there should be no separation of ideals from daily life. Truth should be based upon direct experience; and life should be a living testimony of one's beliefs, even at the cost of great suffering. "The meeting both creates and exemplifies the kind of behavior which ought to prevail everywhere. It is therefore both a laboratory and a training ground for the desired social order. It may even become the germ cell for the new society of tomorrow." Howard Brinton. Quaker Education in Theory and Practice, page 24-25. II. ObjectionsBlocking consensus––the power to object explained 1.Our starting point must be an understanding of what consensus means. Consensus is a way for people to relate to each other as a group. Under consensus, the group takes no action that has not been consented to by all members. Just as people must make their own decisions, the group must make its own decisions; and the group consists of all its members. A decision made by 90% of a group's members speaks for that 90%, not for the group. Consensus is an attempt to recognize that reality. 2.The above is an expression of abstract principle––meaningless without actual provisions to guarantee. that the principle is carried out. 3.The mechanism in the process to assure that the group will take no group action that has not been consented to is the power to object and block consensus. To modify or weaken that power, then, is to destroy the consensus process. 4.Ironically, one of the major ways that the power to object is often undermined in the practice of consensus is by people trying to make it stronger than it really is, or trying to apply it where it does not apply. If the consensus process is to be preserved in more than name, we need to clarify what this "power" is and how it works. 5.The power to object, as noted above, stems from the principle that we take no group action that has not been consented to. "Objections," then, can only apply (at least in the sense of blocking consensus) to proposals for some new course of group action.
6.While it is possible to have opposing strong feelings, it is not possible to have "opposing objections." All objections on a proposal have the same effect––to block the new course of action from being agreed upon by the group. (It is important to distinguish strong feelings from objections. Objections are a special kind of strong feeling. Objections are part of the consensus process––the rules we make decisions by. Strong feelings in general are part of the consensus dynamic--the way we relate to each other. Strong feelings do not dictate what the decision on a proposal will be once the proposal is put forward, but they should influence which proposals are put forward.) 7.Because the "power to object" only applies to proposals to take some new course of actions, it is important before attempting to decide on a proposal––indeed, before putting any proposals forward––for the group to be clear on what course of action it is already committed to. If the group has already agreed on group policy for an issue, then objections can only be used to block changes in that policy––not to cause them. If the group has not agreed on a group policy for an issue, then every member of the group is committed, by the concept of consensus, to taking no group action on this issue until an agreement can be reached to do so. When there is any strong disagreement as to whether or not there is already a group policy, the group must be willing to agree there is not one, and act accordingly––take no group action on the issue until an agreement can be reached to do so. This is a hard rule to live with but a necessary one. (Ideally, any group decision should be written down when it is made. If this is a rule of the process, then the presence or absence of the written decision settles the question. There may be occasional disputes on interpretation of the decision, but this is a problem for any process––including majority rule.) 8.There is a second question that must be answered before a proposal can be put forward: is the action being discussed a "group action"? This needs to be clear, since all members are committed to taking no group action that has not been consented to. In general, a group action is any action that is done in the group's name, that uses group resources, or that reflects significantly on the group. Group action does not necessarily mean an action the whole group is involved in physically––one person passing out leaflets saying "Our group feels..." is a group action calling for group consent. Nor does "group action" necessarily involve a physical action––repealing or discontinuing a standing policy is a new group action. As with the previous question; it is important that the group be clear about what it will do when there is disagreement over whether an action is a group action or not. To be consistent with the concept of consensus, it is necessary that when there is strong disagreement on how to label an action, the action will be considered a group action. (A group can set up a "Bill of Rights" to assure that certain actions/decisions are always the individual's). 9.Before proposals are put forward, there should be discussion to clarify the issues under consideration and to present any strong feelings on the issues. This discussion of the issues and feelings is part of the consensus dynamic––a tool for helping us to save time and reach better resolutions of our problems. 10.After adequate discussion, a suggested "sense of the meeting" can be put forward. All expressed feelings should be taken into account in framing this statement––it is counter–productive to put forward a proposal that does not try to meet all expressed needs. (Continually offering that kind of proposal is obstructionistic.) 11.When a proposal has been put forward, the only proper responses are expressions of objection, or a recognition that there are no strong objections. This does not prevent further clarification of the proposal. People feeling that there has not been adequate discussion should not unilaterally decide to continue the discussion by simply ignoring the proposal. Rather, they should respond by objecting to the proposal on the ground they do not feel sufficiently clear about it to give consent. (This serves the added function of bringing out what areas still need to be discussed, and helps keep the discussion focused,) 12.When a proposal has been made, one of three things can happen:
13.When a strong objection has been expressed, the group can be seen as consisting of two groupings: those who share that objection, and those who do not share that particular objection, These two groupings should not be seen as competitors, or even as having opposing interests; people should be working to find what is best for the group (all its members) rather than thinking in terms of pushing through or defeating the proposal. 14.There are rights and responsibilities incumbent on both groupings:
15.There are 3 choices the group can make in trying to deal with an objection:
16.In a very real sense, there is no "power" to object. Under consensus, we are looking to see if we (the group) are in substantial agreement on something. "Proposals" are attempts to express the sense of the meeting. "Expressing an objection" is simply pointing out that what has been put forward does not accurately express the feelings of the group; "accepting an objection" is simply recognizing that reality. If people are using the process properly, then there is no individual "power" to block the group––only an individual responsibility to express feelings honestly. The power comes not from some artificial set of rules, but from our respect for each other and our ability to accept reality. Meeting objections Under consensus, the group takes no positive course of action that is not consented to by all group members. This is usually done through the mechanism of checking for strong objections, and not adopting any course of action that there is strong objection to until the objection is met or withdrawn. This means that meeting objections is a very important part of a working consensus process. Most decision–making processes concentrate on choosing among alternatives; consensus is marked by its problem–solving nature, which is frequently used to create new alternatives. This new alternative is sometimes referred to as a "third way." Douglas Steere writes of the unshakable faith in consensus which "would defy all fears and bring into the tense process of arriving at this joint decision a kind of patience and a quiet confidence which believes, not that there is no other way, but that there is a 'third alternative' which will annihilate neither party. This 'third alternative' can and must be found––it alone is practicable; it will draw out what is soundest in each position and bring it into vital relation with the other; and all parties must work until it is discovered." (From the introduction to Beyond Dilemmas, p. 19) The consensus process is as much an attitude toward dealing with problems as it is a set of rules. (There has always been a great deal of hesitation to put the process into rules for fear that people would then misuse the rules as a club against other people, rather than applying them properly as a guide to their own behavior.) Here are some of the elements of the problem–solving attitude:
Howard Brinton, in "Theory of Worship," summarizes the points of this attitude and how it works: "The power to create... depends on a living synthesis of diverse elements. A meeting controlled by an individual or by a program seldom produces what is not already there in that individual or program. If, however, many individuals, each sensitive to the Light of Truth, bring together their diversity of tendencies and possibilities, something new may emerge more inclusive and hence more 'true' than any one point of view. This is brought about, not by a mechanical juxtaposition of different opinions but by a real fusion. One may mix oxygen and hydrogen and obtain nothing new. But apply a flame and the new substance, water, is created." Here are those attitudes expressed as a step-by-step process:
Dealing with specific objections: There are 3 general methods for trying to meet an objection. A method that is appropriate in one instance may be inappropriate in another; so if trying to meet an objection one way turns out to be futile, try another method. These three methods are: (1)Try to get at the root of the objection. The objection gives the "what;" often bringing out the "why" will lead to a way to meet the objection. Examples:
CAUTION: this method of meeting objections, trying to get at the root, often turns into a cross–examination of the person stating the objection. When this begins to happen, or if it seems likely to happen, try one of the other methods for meeting objections. While it is satisfying to know more about why people say what they say, it is very unsatisfying to get bogged down in arguments over whether or not the point is "right"or not. An objection can still be respected and dealt with even when the person is too shy or too awkward with words to explain it to the group clearly. (2)Try to modify the idea under consideration to incorporate the objection. Examples:
(3)Find an entirely new direction. This is the best way to meet some objections but it is the most difficult way, calling for the most patience and ingenuity. Examples: A city has limited funds to spend. A coalition of homeowners wants to use the money to improve the fire station, to attract matching federal funds for housing. A coalition of women's groups wants to use the money for day care centers. There is not enough for both, and a half-assed job on both priorities will satisfy no one. Solution: a small portion of the funds was used to convert the existing fire stations into day care centers; which attracted state and federal funds to pay for the rest of its operations. The majority of the city funds were thus freed to build three new fire stations for the region, which served better than the old five, earned the higher insurance rating needed to attract federal funds for housing, and left all happy. Conscience Bay Meeting had their meeting place vandalized in 1967 after they made a strong stand against the Vietnam war. Anti–communist slogans were painted all over the walls, There was heated discussion over whether to make a large fuss and draw attention to the vandalistic nature of war supporters, or whether not to respond in that spirit of anger. After much effort, one of the people opposing publicity came up with the idea of holding a public paint–in and inviting people to help them restore the meetinghouse. This not only satisfied all the people in the meeting but had many positive effects outside the meeting as well. Press coverage was good, and many people called up to say, "I disagree with your stand on the war, but I would like to help you repaint the meetinghouse." The Attitude of Consensus –– Thinking loosely; Thinking clearly; Thinking concretely, Consensus, as noted before, is in large part an attitude with which one approaches problems. It is important to understand the ideals of that attitude: nonviolence, community, equality, simplicity, truthfulness, trust, etc. But it is also important to understand the more concrete aspects of the attitude--the ways these ideals translate into daily usage. Thinking Loosely These are some of the values built into the consensus system:
"These men and women who gathered in silence discovered, even when no voice was raised to, declare it or urge it, that differences which became greater when argued about faded to the point of insignificance in the spiritual fellowship where each individual was primarily trying to be sensitive to some Divine and inner urge. Thinking Clearly Since the consensus process revolves around the idea of truth––trying to bring it out and recognize it--it is important for each participant to have some skill in the recognition of truth or reality. Here are 5 steps used in conjunction with the consensus process to help individuals get in touch with their own truth.
Thinking Concretely "Quakerism is thus essentially an experiential religion as distinguished from those in which speculative doctrines or historical facts are regarded as a fundamental or necessary part. The basis of Quaker conviction of truth or duty must therefore be experience rather than speculation or history. The only essential truth is that which can be put to the test of life; and the only authoritative belief is that which has been verified in personal experience or in the experience of a... group of which the individual is a part." "You will say, Christ saith this and the apostles say that; but what canst thou say?" George Fox Properly used, consensus is a very practical and reality or experience-based process. Here are 5 general guidelines:
Applying these attitudes When to object:
When not to object:
None of these three have the effect of blocking consensus unless you also feel that what has been suggested is unacceptable for some reason. Work to meet objections. Don't get hung up pushing for one course of action or point of view––try to get at roots, not only of objections but also of the original concern. (What root need is the idea being suggested designed to meet?) There are many ways to express your feelings. Do so in whichever way expresses your actual feelings most clearly. Don't get hung up over whether to call it a blocking objection or not. Express it honestly, and work as a group to determine what it means for the group. III. Macro–consensusMacro–consensus––explanation of how it works Macro–consensus is consensus where the members are groups rather than individuals. To understand group consensus, we must first understand individual consensus. (The term "macro–consensus" is new; the concept goes back to the organizational pattern outlined by George Fox in the 1600's of local (Monthly), regional (Quarterly) and groupwide (Yearly) meetings.) I. INDIVIDUAL CONSENSUS A)Small group consensus. (Example: an affinity group).
If there are no objections, then the proposal can be adopted. If there are objections then an attempt is made to meet them. If there is a strong objection, then the proposal is not adopted until the objection is either satisfied or withdrawn. For practical purposes, then, the 4 categories of response can be boiled down to two: (1) strong objection blocking consensus on the proposal; (2) no strong objection blocking consensus on the proposal. Objections are to consensus what the vote is to majority rule. No stigma should be attached to raising an objection to a proposal. It is important, however, that all participants understand that the point of raising and hearing objections is to try to meet them so the group can find its sense. "Meeting an objection" is very different from arguing about an objection. "Meeting an objection" means: accepting the objection and moving on; or getting at the root of the objection; or finding an acceptable way to modify the proposal; or finding an entirely new proposal that covers the objection and the original needs. It should be noted that very rarely will a person be 100% for or 100% against a proposal; and that we should not be looking at a proposal in those terms. The question is not whether we are for or against a proposal; it is not whether or not we are mostly for something or mostly against it. The question is simply, "Is there any strong objection to the proposal?" Majority rule prepares us to look for what we like when voting (voting expresses our first preference); consensus is sometimes confusing because instead of voting for our first choice we are rejecting objectionable choices. The power to object should be used carefully and responsibly; but we should not be afraid to use it. If a person has strong objection to part of a proposal, but likes all the rest of the proposal, that person should express their objection. It is through the raising and meeting of objections that progress is made with the consensus process. It is harmful for people to raise a "strong" objection for trivial reasons; but it is equally harmful for people to shy away from raising objections when they do have strong feelings against a proposal; or for people to hesitate from putting forward non–blocking objections; or to put forward only objections they feel can't be met. Putting forward objections and helping to meet them should be seen as a positive rather than negative action. B)Large group consensus (Example: a Congress). Large group consensus is also an example of consensus among individuals. The rules of the consensus process are the same for large groups as for small; the rules do not distinguish between a group of 4 and a group of 400. But the dynamics are clearly different. Four people can talk together and get to know each other. The chances of there being a strong objection to a proposal in a group of 4 are smaller than for a group of 400; and the chances that some way to work objections out can be found is greater for the small group. Unless a large group has a great deal of unity, a large group using a consensus process will reject almost every proposal put before it. For large group consensus to be worthwhile, the group should be able to do more together than simply reject proposals. Large group consensus can be worthwhile under the following conditions:
There are 2 others things that are almost always needed for large group consensus:
II. MACRO-CONSENSUS Macro–consensus is a consensus process where the members are groups rather than individuals (example: a Coordinating Committee). Macro–consensus is in general a better way for large groups to relate than through large group consensus. Historically, in the Religious Society of Friends, where the consensus process originated, the small groups met together through a structure of macro–groups called Quarterly Meetings and Yearly Meetings. When using consensus among individuals (whether for large or small group) there were 2 possible responses each member could make to a proposal: strong objection, or no strong objection. But when the members are groups, there may be confusion about how many choices are open and what each choice means.
(If we start counting numbers––using half, most, and a few, instead of the more general term some––then these 7 categories can be more than doubled. And we have not even attempted to include in these categories mention of non–blocking objections.) How do we relate these categories to the original 2? In other words, how do we apply the rules of individual consensus to group consensus? One way is to picture the group as being an individual. As noted before, an individual will rarely be of "one mind" about a proposal; usually a proposal will arouse mixed feelings. But even if a proposal evokes 10 responses, and 9 of these are favorable, there is still an obligation to state the 10th response if that is a strong objection. (If the person is really inclined toward the proposal, then there is a strong incentive to find ways to meet one's own objection.) Similarly, a group that is part of a macro–consensus group may be of a "mixed mind" but if one member holds a strong objection that has not been met, then the whole group has a responsibility to send this objection on to the larger group. (For this reason, it is important to all the groups in a macro–consensus group that all groups are made of people who know each other, get along, and are able to work things out together.) Of the 7 listed categories, then, the first four (a, b, c, and d) should be treated as "strong objection blocking consensus" and the last three (e, f, and g) should be treated as "no strong objection." This may seem like a surprising result, or a difficult one to work with. But it is a logical result and a necessary one. Macro–consensus is different from large group consensus only in structure (dynamic). It should never be possible to gerrymander consensus––that it, it should never be possible to manipulate the outcome of consensus decision–making simply by regrouping people. There are advantages to macro–consensus over large group consensus, but these occur because of the dynamic, which encourages cooperation, understanding, and creative solutions. A consensus process, whether for a large group or a small one, must embody the concept of consensus, which is that no group action is taken that has not been consented to by all members of the group. That is the test we must apply to whatever process we find ourselves using, to see if it is consensus in more than name. A Model For Macro–Consensus Processes Macro–consensus refers to any consensus process where the members are groups rather than individuals. A group made up of other groups is called a macro–group. The members of a macro–group are called member groups. Regional groups made up of local groups are macro–groups; regional groups are often member groups in larger macro–groups made up of many regions.
(Note that REQUESTS involve decision–making but SUGGESTIONS do not.) 9.Some things should be done within/among member groups instead of or before being brought up at the macro-meetings. These include general discussion of issues and most decision-making. 10.The macro–group is a place for member groups to share plans and intentions, and try to coordinate these plans and intentions. The main emphasis should be on information–sharing and coordination, rather than on decision–making. Groups should be sharing what they are doing rather than making plans for what other groups should do. However, there will be times when a decision does need to be made at the macro–level. It is important that each group understands: (a) how consensus works for itself; and (b) how consensus works at the macro–group. Here is an outline for macro-consensus: A)Brief discussion of the topic on which a decision is needed.
B)After the needs and feelings of all the member groups have been adequately brought out and clarified, proposals can be made that attempt to meet all expressed needs. (No proposal should be made that consciously ignores an expressed strong need.) C)When a suggestion has been made, the question facing the group is, "Are there any strong objections to the proposal as stated?" Only when there are no strong objections to the statement is it accepted as the sense of the meeting. D)If no person in a member group has strong objections, then the group can say to the macro–group that it has no strong objections. If any person in a member group does have a strong objection to something, the objection must be worked out before the member group can give the macro–group consent on that item. Three ways to meet objections are:
E)If no proposal can be found that is acceptable to all member groups, then the macro–group takes no group action on the issue at hand. (This does not necessarily prevent one or more groups from acting in their own names on the issue, as long as they are not acting in the name of the macro–group or in a way that will reflect on the macro–group. (The term "macro–consensus" is new; the concept goes back to the organizational pattern outlined by George Fox in the 1600's of local (Monthly), regional (Quarterly), and groupwide (Yearly) meetings.) The Fine Art Of Public Spoking: how to act as a representative in a consensus system. "Although a formal hierarchy of meetings was found to be necessary for....survival and development..., the freedom of every acknowledged member of the Society to attend meetings at any level of the hierarchy was self–consciously preserved.... The practice developed of designating representatives from among those most active in the meeting as official delegates to the meeting at the next highest level, although all members of the Society remained free to attend as well, and being an official delegate was not a necessary qualification for appointment to any of the committees set up at the Quarterly and Yearly Meetings." Richard Bauman, For The Reputation of Truth, p. 65 "Friends were nominated by local meetings for worship to attend the monthly meeting, and again by the monthly meeting to attend quarterly meetings; but the critical point is that these appointments were not designed to limit, but rather to augment the business meetings..." Richard Vann, Social Development of English Quakerism, p. 109 Representation in a system based on consensus is somewhat different from representation in most other systems. Because the task in meetings is to try to determine the truth of a situation, rather than to make arbitrary decisions, many of the usual dilemmas connected with the question of representation are avoided. There is no problem with the under-representation of minorities––every opinion held is heard, and numbers are not counted. Nor is there the classic problem of whether a representative should strictly represent the views of the constituency, or vote their own conscience––in consensus, the representative is trying to pass on what is coming out of their group so that the larger group can put the individual truths together and try to reach a larger truth (i.e. the representative is supposed to pass along any strong feelings, objections, concerns, ideas, etc. coming out of the group). And since, if consensus is being used properly, everyone in the representative's group should be clear about what the group has been able to agree to on the various topics being carried to the larger group, then anyone else from the group would also be able to function as a representative of the group; and if two people from the same group show up at the same meeting, they should be presenting basically the same report from their group. That, at least, is how it should work in theory. For this to work in practice means that all members of the group should have a certain minimum proficiency in consensus: being able to hear what is coming out in their group, being able to express this sense of the meeting in words the other group members accept as a valid expression of the sense of the meeting, and being able to convey this to other people outside their group. The role of representing the feelings of one's group, and carrying back to the group news from other groups and from the macro-group, has recently acquired the label of "spoke" (as in spokesperson, or in a spoke in a wheel.) Everyone should be prepared and able to act as a spoke if the need arises, although a group may prefer to have one person generally act as their spoke. In order to convey the feelings of the group, the spoke must know them. If a poor job is done discussing issues and building consensus, the spoke will either have to run back and forth for clarification, make decisions for other people, or climb a wall. When discussing an issue, cover it thoroughly. Even if there is a proposal being considered rather than a general concern, don't just send back a yes or no.
The key to keep in mind for discussing the issues that the spoke needs input on is anticipation. If a group merely reacts––looks at the question and says "we feel this way about that"––then your spoke will have a great deal of trouble at the macro–meeting (and cause trouble for the other people there). Your group may be willing to live with something––but what happens then when another group is not? Experience will teach you which questions to ask yourselves; practice will enable you to bring out your own true feelings on issues in ways that others in the group can understand well enough to carry on to other groups for you. Having a thorough discussion is necessary for being able to send your feelings on to other groups; but it is not enough.
The spoke's job does not end when the feelings of your group have been conveyed to the macro–group. Here are two more parts of the job that need to be done:
Two final notes of caution, to help you be a good spoke:
IV. How to use the processDynamics of consensus––some suggestions for using the process Dynamics refers to how we use our consensus process––the attitudes we bring to meetings as well as the actual ways we use to carry out the process. Some attitudes we are encouraged to bring to consensus processes are trust, respect, responsibility, creativity, cooperation, openness, honesty, and community spirit; some attitudes we are encouraged to leave at home are competition, aggression, distrust, domination, intolerance, deceit, and manipulation.– It is easy to say: "Don't dominate or manipulate others" –– but it is hard to unlearn these majority rule habits and patterns that have been ingrained on us since childhood. Realizing these attitudes are present, that these attitudes are bad for consensus, and wanting to be free of these attitudes is a good start, but it is not enough to free us from these attitudes. That requires work and concentration, not just the expression of ideals. Similarly, it is easy to say: "Trust and respect the other group members"––but actually building these attitudes requires effort and commitment, It is like building a house; it is good to understand what you want to build, to draw blueprints, and to have a commitment to doing the job––but at some point you have to actually get out the tools and do the work. There are many possible suggestions for building good group dynamics. Rules and suggestions that are right for one group may be wrong for another. It is important that each group try to set up a dynamic that is right for those people at that time. It is also very important that the group understand what it is attempting to do and that there is genuine consent to whichever way is chosen. The following set of 7 rules are from an article "About the Thursday Night Listening Focusing Group" by Dan Massad (Rough Times, Sept.–Oct., 1973). ...What I want people to read about are the ways we've come up with for making our discussions serve better each person's learning and serve the topic....
Quick decision-making––using the process under pressure There is no magical "quick decision process." Some processes are theoretically capable of working more quickly than others, but any process is capable of misuse in ways which will make it bog down. To be able to make decisions quickly, a group must do the necessary work. It would be nice if there were some super–process which would do all, our work for us, but there isn't. Where does the time go? The two major sources of time–eating are:
Making decisions more quickly, then, requires working on these areas. Consensus, slow or fast? Consensus is sometimes considered as a "slow" process, and majority rule is sometimes thought of as "quick". There are several inaccuracies in these views.
How to use consensus quickly:
To reduce the amount of time lost on persuasion:
How to use consensus quickly under pressure:
Trying to meet objections under time pressure: If the group is willing to continue meeting a little longer to try to meet the objections, here are some ways to increase the chances of being successful:
V. AFFINITY: choosing to work togetherThe word consensus means a state of unity or harmony. It is also used to name a type of group process that is based on finding or building that state. The consensus process we use today evolved from the meeting process of the early Quakers. Used properly, it is an attempt to work together cooperatively in a friendly group to seek truth. Unlike most group processes, which emphasize working separately (usually competitively), the consensus process places a large value on the group and on working together as a group. "Friends at the beginning were faced with a dilemma: either they must accept the validity of external authority (whether Romanist or Protestant), or they had no check on the spirit of libertines and Ranters. The deep Quaker conviction was that these two horns of the dilemma did not exhaust the possibilities. They felt there should be a better way, and their very expectancy helped them to formulate it. The fundamental solution included the setting aside of times for group judgment upon matters affecting both individuals and the group, the decision to be rendered not by a vote at the conclusion of a parliamentary debate, but by a joint decision of the entire group as the result of approaching each problem in the mood of reverent search for God's will." Elton Trueblood, "Quaker Method of Reaching Decisions" The key to enabling a group to successfully reach consensus, then, is its desire and its ability to work together as a group. Here are some elements of affinity:
There are different views on how much sharing of values is needed to make it easy for a group to work together with a consensus process. Some believe that there must be a great deal of commonality before people can find meaningful positions of unity; others feel that any group that really wants to can reconcile seemingly irreconcilable views. However, there are some values that must be shared for a different reason. These are the values that underlie the consensus process itself. These values include: placing value on the group, and on working together as a group; placing value on the individual; respecting each person and seeing something good in each person; having responsibility to the group, and to each other individually; having patience, and being willing to wait and seek truth together; belief in the existence of an underlying truth; and belief that truth can be found through creative peaceableness. Working together as a group, rather than as a collection of individuals, can be difficult (and frightening) at first. It calls for conscious effort, and a willingness to share with others. It is easier to talk of affinity than to realize it; but it is worth the effort. VI. Group ProcessGroup process––general information "Group process" is a simple phrase for a complex (and often troublesome) topic. Group process refers to how members of a group relate to each other, as individuals and as a group. Group process covers relations for working together, socializing together, and making decisions together (and probably other relations as well). The visible tip of the iceberg is the group's decision'making process––the set of rules by which meetings are conducted and business taken care of. Process, of course, involves more than just decision'making; but decision–making is a good aspect to grab hold of and focus on. There are many categories of decision-making processes. Some of these are: random, dictatorial, and democratic. Consensus and majority rule, while radically different from each other in many ways, are both branches of democratic process. Here are some general features of group processes.
Every process is vulnerable to breakdowns in dynamic––the inability to work together comfortably to reach good decisions. (Majority rule is as vulnerable to this as consensus. There are many majority rule systems that take a long time to do very little, such as the U.S. Congress.) Note that when the dynamic is poor or breaks down, the process has not broken down. There is no inability to make decisions; the problem is that the content is unsatisfactory, or that it takes too long. The problem will not go away by changing the process; the next process may not work any better unless. the group learns to work with instead of against the process. Consensus and majority rule "Consensus" is an attempt at nonviolent group process. It is more than a decision–making process (technique), although, as with other aspects of nonviolence, it can be seen as both a technique and a principle. When viewed as a technique, consensus frequently degenerates into a re–labeled majority rule. Consensus, like majority rule, is the name of a broad category of processes. Consensus processes are based on the idea that the group takes no action that has not been consented to by all members. Majority rule processes are based on the idea that the group takes no action that has not been affirmed by a set fraction of the members (more than half). Consensus processes are radically different in theory, practice, and underlying principles from majority rule processes (including unanimous majority rule, to which consensus bears a superficial resemblance.) A few of the contrasts:
The above list is stacked in favor of consensus, and should not be taken as saying "consensus is good, majority rule is bad", or "consensus is better than majority rule." Both have their own advantages and disadvantages. Majority rule is a useful process for choosing among a number of options which are all similar in acceptability and an arbitrary choice is needed, although it is not so useful for choosing between unequal choices or making a choice when all alternatives put forward are unacceptable; while consensus is useful for creating new alternatives, but is perhaps less suited to the making of arbitrary choices. The point is not that one is good and the other bad, but rather that the two are basically different and incompatible. Fasting, and eating citrus fruit, can both be healthful practices; but trying to do both at once leads to certain contradictions. Many, if not most, of our problems in consensus dynamics are caused by members bringing majority rule attitudes to the consensus process. This sabotages consensus as surely as imposing consensus attitudes on majority rule would sabotage majority rule. (Consider the problems of majority rule, where the minority consistently refuses to accept the outcome of votes because they have objections; or where the minority constantly demands votes on proposals which they know will not get enough votes to pass, and then demand the process be changed because their proposals are not being passed!) There are many ways in which the dynamics of majority rule and consensus are incompatible:
Besides the incompatibility of their dynamics, as listed above, there are 2 more reasons why mixing majority rule and consensus is not a good idea.
Fall–backs: an alternative to degeneration What are fall–backs? Simply put, they are a set of starting agreements. These should ideally be written down when a group is forming. They say to a new person, "This is what our group is, what we believe, what we are doing, what we require of each other. If you can accept this, you are welcome to join us." Fall–backs are our bottom lines, our principles of unity; our foundation to build upon––whatever the current cliche is. They are our guarantee that we will be able to act together even when we cannot reach a new consensus. Fall-backs are not a new idea, although the term is new. Virtually every workable process is based on a fall–back understanding. This understanding is frequently taken for granted. Sometimes the fall–backs are explicit (a written constitution, such as in the US); sometimes the fall–backs are implicit (an unwritten constitution, such as in England). But the understanding of fall–backs––that we do not start from a vacuum––must be there or chaos will eventually result. Majority rule is not a cure for this chaos. Indeed, majority rule without fall–backs is equally chaotic. For example: A group of 10 people requires a 2/3 vote to adopt a proposal. 6 members are in favor of fence–cutting and 4 are opposed. A proposal not to cut fences will lose; but so will a proposal to allow fence–cutting. It is impossible to pass a proposal either way, without some understanding of which side needs to get the 2/3 vote, the requirement of a 2/3 vote is meaningless. Even a simple majority vote, without a fall–back understanding, is unworkable: A group of 15 people use simple majority vote. It is May and one occupation has just ended; there are 3 basic positions within the group regarding a future occupation. Jane, Jean, Jill, James, and Jean want a fall occupation (they insist on some occupation, and spring is too far off.) Betty, Bernice, Bob, Beatrice, and Beauregard want a spring occupation (they agree there must be another occupation, but fall is too soon). Ruthanne, Roberta, Ray, Rick, and someone else feel that something other than an occupation should be tried (they oppose either a spring or fall occupation.) A proposal for a spring. occupation is defeated 10–5; a proposal for a fall occupation is defeated l0–5; and a proposal for no occupation is defeated 10–5. Majority rule is not a magic solution to all our process problems. But because it is sometimes viewed as quicker and easier than consensus, there is a frequent tendency to want to fall back on majority rule in emergency situations. There are several problems with this:
The desire to use majority rule comes from a (mistaken) feeling that consensus will leave us high and dry in an emergency, needing to do something but unable to make a decision. The error is in thinking that in this case we don't have a consensus and so have to make a non–consensus decision, or else keep at it until people get tired enough to hammer something out. Consensus does not start from a vacuum. As with any workable process, there must be some initial agreements before further agreements/decisions can be reached. It is sometimes said that under consensus we do not make a decision unless there is complete agreement (or at least no strong objections). This is not entirely correct. Rather, we do not decide to take any new action, or change our present course of action/inaction, until agreement is reached to do so. There is always a consensus––i.e. the last position or course of action agreed on for this issue. (This is not the same as "what we are doing" or "what we did last time.") There is only a problem if:
To meet these problems, a group should:
Below is an example of how imperfect fall–backs aid in reaching consensus: A group of hungry people are trying to decide on food to buy and share for lunch. They have $5 to spend. Cheese is $2 a pound with a special rate of $5 for 5 pounds. Bread is 40 cents a loaf in quantities of 10 or more; otherwise it is 80 cents a loaf. (Bread and cheese are the only foods the group is considering, for reasons that do not concern us.) Part of the group (11 people) want to spend all the money for cheese; some others (5 people, 3 of whom do not eat cheese) prefer using as much money as possible for bread; the remaining group members (4 people) are willing to accept any amount of cheese and bread as long as some food is obtained quickly. The obvious compromise between the extremes of all cheese or all bread would be to buy some of both. This is not a popular idea, since buying any bread will reduce the amount of cheese that can be bought by more than half (see chart). CHART OF VARIOUS OPTIONS
Because everyone is hungry, there is shared urgency for reaching a quick decision.
If it appears that consensus will not be reached, then every person (except the three who do not eat cheese) is better off standing aside on all objections and accepting any of the 10 options listed in the chart. The 3 who do not eat cheese are no worse off by standing aside on their objection, since either way they do not get any food. Thus consensus properly used provides a built-in incentive for people to stand aside on all but strong principled objections; there is a disincentive for objecting to one thing simply because you would prefer something else. If the members of this group understand the fall–back and take it seriously, then, there should be little trouble in reaching a decision that all members are willing to accept. The "imperfection" of this fall–back––the fact that the fall–back was a situation no one in the group wanted to prolong––is what provides the impetus to reach a consensus, Which outcome will be chosen depends on the people in the group. It would be nice if they came up with an ingenious "third way" that would feed everyone happily. but even if this is not found, the fall–back gives people the incentive to reach a consensus in one of many ways. Three likely ways are:
The third outcome may appear similar to the outcome under simple majority rules the decision is to buy 5 pounds of cheese, but there is a difference. The difference is between people being forced to make a sacrifice for the good of others, and people choosing to do so on their own. The decision may be the same; but how the decision was made, and how people will feel about the decision, are quite different. These are differences worth preserving. VII. Membership"The informal and inward nature of Quakerism is well indicated by the fact that for nearly a century no systematic method was used for identifying members." "Let us make as little of membership as possible, and keep our society as an open–ended community, such as it was during its first 100 years, counting as Quakers all who journey with us." The question of membership is sometimes a ticklish one for consensual groups. The general principle is that anyone who believes in the same principles as the consensual group, is of the same nature––i.e, a member. But who determines if someone holds essentially the same views as a group which does not write down its standards? The seeming dilemma stems from the idea in consensus that it is reality and not appearances that are to be judged. Thus, a consensus group does not arbitrarily set down a list of entrance requirements. However, the dilemma between arbitrarily determining membership, and leaving the group open to anyone who wishes to declare themself a member, whether they believe as the group does or not, is only a seeming dilemma. In reality, the solution is fairly simple (in theory, at least). Even though a group has not written down a checklist of doctrines, the realty of those beliefs which make up the character of the group exists. Those who conform to those standards are the same as group members. And the truth of that membership is determined in the same way as other truth––by proper application of the consensus process by those concerned. Here is a step–by–step description of the general process:
In being a member, one is expected to accept to a large degree the beliefs of the group. However, beliefs vary from person to person. It is generally more important to accept that these are group truths than to accept them fully as individual truths––"We as a group believe this," ("Even though I personally am still striving to understand these beliefs more fully and live them.") When a person is a member, one phrase for the relationship is "owning one another." This idea goes with the concept of affinity, being responsible one for another. The other side of membership is disownment––being recognized as not being part of the group. This is a serious matter, and difficult to handle––it is not always done in the spirit of consensus that it should be done in. Historically in the Religious Society of Friends the sequence of events ran roughly as follows: if someone in the group were "walking disorderly"––violating principles of the group––people in the meeting were supposed to talk with that person. If results of these conversations were not mutually satisfying, it was recommended to go together to others in the meeting for assistance in seeking truth. If this also failed the matter was brought to the whole meeting. The attitude at all times was to be one of flexibility and seeking, rather than a prejudging or rigid attitude. Care was to be taken not to create a polarized situation, but to genuinely seek out the truth of the matter. If the group came to a recognition of its reality, that this person was not someone they considered one of them, this was to be stated. The process ideally was to be one of "testifying against" wrongdoing rather than the "cutting off" of anyone; and if the person changed their behavior they would be once more a part of the group. VIII. Ideals of non–violenceNon–violence is important to the attitude in which consensus is used. Here are some ideals of non–vioIence. We take a broad view of violence, and seek to avoid emotional as well as physical violence. Our aim is to teach people, not to subdue them. To practice non–violence, we must be non–violent. Therefore, we seek to work together in a spirit of sharing, cooperation, acceptance, openness, honesty, trust, respect, and caring. We seek to resolve conflict by working to reach understanding and a shared truth. All our actions should be free of the attempt to humiliate, injure, or subjugate. We follow our consciences, and encourage others to follow theirs. We try to refrain from activities that others around us find offensive or hurtful. Our commitment is expressed by our willingness to sacrifice our own time and comfort. We recognize that the ends are a product of our means. Therefore, we seek to overcome our own attitudes of aggressiveness, competitiveness, distrust, deceit, selfishness, prejudice, intolerance, exploitation, and domination. We reject coercion––the ability to make someone else do something against their will. We realize the need for unity, and put this above our personal whims and ambitions. IX. Common process problems.Things commonly done that shouldn't be done 1.Not accepting objections. Commitment to consensus means that we––as individuals, as a group––do not do things we know will hurt or offend others in the group. If we feel someone is mistaken in their feeling we can try to share other perspectives with them––but it is their feeling, and they must be the final determiner of whether or not they still retain that feeling. If we think someone is mistaken but we are not able to find words that will convince them, then we should accept their objection and suspend group judgment––that is, adopt no new policy as a group––until a later date when a more meaningful discussion occurs and people do reach some understanding. Instead: pressure is put on people to withdraw objections; people with objections are made to feel separate from the group; people are sometimes cross-examined in a hostile fashion about their objection; time is wasted arguing on whether an objection is right, rather than focusing on what can be done to meet it. 2.Thinking in terms of resolutions and voting. "In their meeting for business, where all members may take part, no motions are put and no votes taken. Any Friend having a concern on any question informally lays it before the meeting. Friends are then encouraged to discuss the concern without being hampered by any of the usual rules of debate. If the proposition meets with favor from a substantial part of the membership, the clerk draws up a minute embodying the consensus of the best ideas presented. If necessary this minute is revised until all objections are met. No positive action is taken in the face of any considerable opposition. The final result is not a compromise of conflicting views but a synthesis of the best thought of all...." 3.Representation misused to set some members above others, and to exclude participation rather than to ensure it. With the consensus process, a representative does not "decide" what to pass on and what not to pass on; they are obligated to pass on whatever has come out––in particular, to pass along any objection which has not been met. When only a few people are allowed to represent a region, then it is possible for objections not to be passed on even though they exist––effectively disenfranchising people,and making for bitter struggles over who will be the representatives. 4.Speaking abstractly for others rather than concretely for oneself. 5.Treating consensus like a game or contest, to be won, rather than as a commitment to finding truth together. The idea of consensus is to state one's sincere feelings as plainly and simply as possible, respecting the good sense of others rather than trying to manipulate them. Winning by outmaneuvering or outlasting or out–whatevering other people is contrary to the idea of consensus. If it is not possible to reach a comfortable sense of the meeting regarding some issue in a given time or setting, then no decision should be made at that time. Everyone, no matter how strongly they might want some new course of action to be adopted, should be committed to affirming this principle. 6.Imposing time limits, deadlines, and other artificial constraints to induce pressured and "emergency" decisions. 7.Demanding "progress" and "decisions" be put ahead of building understanding. Things not done much which should be done more often : 1.Assure that all people can feel comfortable as part of the group. This involves: 2.Taking time to make sure we understand what is going on. 3.Listening to others carefully; saying when we do not understand what they have said. 4.Building on what others say; synthesizing, rather than putting ideas in conflict. 5.Thinking creatively––breaking out of ruts, looking for new alternatives. 6.Spending time preparing for meetings––arranging thoughts coherently in advance. 7.Building understanding of, and skills in using, the consensus process. X. Recommended readingThe richest source of information on the various. aspects of consensus is the shelf on Quakers at a good library (289.6 Dewey Decimal). Here are some useful books (in no particular order): Beyond Dilemmas, edited by S. B. Laughlin, especially the chapter "Quaker Method of Reaching Decisions" by Elton Trueblood. Faith and Practice of New England Yearly Meeting, 1966 edition. Quaker Education in Theory and Practice by Howard Brinton Friends for 300 Years by Howard Brinton Quakers Find a Way––Discoveries in Practical Living by Charles Woolman Approach to Quakerism by E. B. Castle For the Reputation of Truth by Richard Bauman The Quaker Contribution by Harold Loukes William Braithwaite Beginnings of Quakerism by Geoffrey Hubbard Quaker by Convincement by Geoffrey Hubbard Character of a Quaker by Henry J. Cadbury The Quiet Rebels by Margaret Bacon Words and Testimonies by Thomas H. Silcook Several of these books are actually Pendle Hill Pamphlets. Pendle Hill is a Quaker center in Wallingford, Pennsylvania––if interested, you could write them to see about getting pamphlets. For anyone interested in more ambitious or less religious reading, there are some interesting books on democratic theory. The Calculus of Consent by John Buchanan actually touches briefly (and favorably) on consensus. Most of these books are more concerned with majority rule processes, but the ideas, if you can get through the language, are worthwhile in a study of group process. Robert Dahl, Preface to Democratic Theory, touches on a lot of points. Robin Farquharson, Theory of Voting, is a readable little book on the paradox of voting. Kenneth J. Arrow¹s Social Choice and Individual Values is difficult, but contains the famous General (lm)possibility Theorem (which demonstrates that there is no possible democratic majority rule procedure). Luce and Raifa, Games and Decisions is another. You will find references for further reading in these books if you want. Finally: How to Make Meetings Work, Doyle and Strauss, 1976 , is a very useful guide to a modification of consensus called the Interaction Method. |