In Defense of Consensus

Living in an intentional community with twelve mindful and critically constructive people has been a rewarding experience. One of the things that we talked about as a group when we met in the planning stages of our community was our desire to operate under a consensus based decision making framework. It is arguably the most important contributing factor for the long term survival of our community. It is what has kept us going for 3 years in the high turnover rental market of San Francisco.

Recently, someone shared an article with me on the limits of consensus. I can’t help but respond because while I understand that the author is talking about the difficulties in using consensus as a decision making structure in labor organizations and movements that can have hundreds or thousands of people, they fail to make that clear in their article. In order to strengthen their argument, the author overlooks or minimizes many of the benefits that consensus can offer regardless of the size of the organization. Here I aim to state some of those benefits as well as to provide a more nuanced view of consensus.

Primarily, I disagree with the author’s assertion that democracy somehow encourages “the fullest debate and discussion” while consensus tries to minimize debate for fear of hurting compromise. First, the whole point of consensus is that the ideas and feelings in the room come to light and are debated and acknowledged because we can’t move on until everyone is in agreement. Democracy on the other hand seems to squash debate the minute there is a majority on an issue in the interest of saving time. Secondly, from my experience and from taking a quick account of the world, democracy seems to be more about politicking, positioning, and hidden compromises by the people in power rather than healthy factual debate. But, you might say, the problem is not with democracy itself but with how it is implemented and practiced. And I would say exactly the same thing about consensus. Organizations need to have a healthy consensus based decision making process in order for it to work in a constructive way.

Members need to be informed on what consensus is and need to wield it as a tool to have all voices heard rather than a weapon to get their way. The organization bears the responsibility of conveying this to its members. And when possible of recruiting members that believe in and understand the concept of consensus. I believe the author is incorrect in their assumption that the situation where an individual or a minority hold up procedures endlessly to get their way is the norm rather than the exception without providing any supporting evidence.

I see the author’s argument that consensus-based decision making environments make people feel like they are being forced to agree. But this seems to further underscore the one-dimensional take on consensus that the author is applying in the writing of this article. Members in a healthy consensus need to be able to abstain from the decision making process. There are processes for consensus that allow should allow for disagreement or abstention with commitment to the decision made. And this in my mind is better than a situation where one group is allowed to overrule a smaller group.

Furthermore, I strongly disagree with the authors framing of compromise as a situation where everyone loses something rather than an outcome where everyone gets something they want. Compromise in a healthy way encourages individuals to look for the possibility in a polarized situation. Often people have excellent reasons for being on any side of an issue – and spirited debate should not be just about getting more than half of the people on your side, but rather about engaging in the conversation as a learner and being open to modifying your position based on the nuances of the issue that you might not have contended with before.

In this way (in my opinion) consensus often has the upper hand over democracy. Consensus enables a minority to take the time necessary to show the majority the blindspots or biases that led them to their initial opinion on an issue. It stops the rule of the majority from becoming tyrannical depending on the issue and how borders between the majority and minority are constructed.

I understand why it would scare or frustrate people. It can be difficult and tedious. It involves work. Not just when there is a decision to be made but constant meta-work on the process for decision making itself. But for all of this work you get a community that is more engaged with and critical of itself. And that is a gift.

 

Quick thoughts on Education

My journey through my thoughts in the last year has led me to a conclusion that seems obvious. That a lot of the problems we face in the world today can be solved in the next 20 years if we can teach children to think critically. Teach them not only how to consume information, but how to question. Not only to learn, but to celebrate being wrong. Not just to produce, but to create.

This is a tall order, of course. This wisdom has been out there for decades, there is nothing new here. Every idealistic teacher has thought of this and much more, I am merely scratching the surface. Yet it seems like we are still stuck in the same world we were in at the time of the industrial revolution. Teaching students the same tired old things with the same tired old methods.

There are reasons why issues persist in our education system. Education is a public good and governments and bureaucracy are involved with the dissemination of knowledge and the literacy of the population. This inevitably slows things down as education vies with other public and private interests for money and attention. Furthermore, the methods of publishing and distributing information until recently have been primitive and expensive, so we needed text books containing knowledge deemed ‘important’ that were distributed all over the country. This then leads to the one-size-fits-all education system appears to be a well oiled machine for churning out human calculators and good Consumers-with-a-capital-C that can all see a way to achieving ‘the dream’.

Except ‘the dream’ is changing, and the way to get to a good future for yourself is changing. But the way we educate our population doesn’t seem to be changing. Producing out doctors, lawyers, engineers, and accountants isn’t good enough anymore. Those jobs are gone. Or they will be soon. Besides, the current system of education alienates half the population at the outset by catering to a very specific learning style and forcing children to fit a generic mold. We have to allow for all children to be thinkers and tinkerers and creators. We have to allow for all children to be equally successful. And the system isn’t designed for that. But it can be.

So why do we have the ability to solve these systematic problems now that we haven’t been able to solve for the last fifty years? The power has shifted into the hands of the creator. Here the ‘creator’ is anyone with a good idea and a computer. It is allowing for private players to enter an industry that for a long time has been expensive and mired in regulation. Additionally, because of the rise in computing power and the ubiquitousness of computers we have the technology and ability to provide learning platforms that can cater to an individual’s needs. The one-size-fits-all model doesn’t need to exist anymore. We can encourage learning on an individual basis to account for individual needs and the needs of our times.

Teachers are doing such great work and paying teachers more would be a quick and easy solution to most of our woes. But that relies on governments getting their act together which is not something we can control. What we can control is the creation and distribution of cheap, easy to use, and widespread technology that is better able to assist the teacher and student.

The work happening in the field is progressing fast and is going to be exciting to watch.

Net Neutrality – What you can do

The FCC has repealed Net Neutrality rules that recognize telecom companies as common carriers under Title II. This is bad.

Americans have been fighting to protect Net Neutrality all year long. Unfortunately, the FCC is not subject to public pressure. They voted (along party lines) to repeal Net Neutrality. You should be upset.

And here’s what you can do:

Boycott, Boycott, Boycott

Ultimately these telecom companies, their lawyers, and their lobbyists are paid by your internet and phone bill. The surest way to make your voice heard is to stop paying them.

Switch your ISP and your cell phone provider over to companies with more progressive views on Net Neutrality. Its really (really) easy! This has the added benefit of putting your money in the pocket of companies that will fight FOR you.

Switching your Internet Service Provider

  1. A simple yelp search for ‘ISP’ can show you who your local internet service providers are.
  2. Look them up and see their stance on Net Neutrality.
  3. Contact them and tell them you want to switch your ISP.

Here are some great options for my friends in the Bay Area:
MonkeybrainsWebpassSonic

Switching your cell phone provider

This is so easy, its ridiculous. I know a lot of you are probably on sweetheart deals and family plans from your current provider. But protest is supposed to be slightly inconvenient.

If you’re with AT&T, Sprint, Verizon, or T-Mobile, you should definitely switch. If you’re not, you should look into what your cell phone provider’s stance on Net Neutrality is.

Project Fi by Google is a great option and so is MintSim. They both have service that is at least as good as the major carriers.

VOTE!

The 2018 elections are just around the corner. Get involved. Look into your representative’s stance on Net Neutrality (among other issues) when you make up your mind on who to vote for. And then go vote!

As a reminder, these rules were repealed on party lines. All the Republican commissioners voted to repeal while the Democratic commissioners voted against the repeal.

Two of the republican commissioners terms are ending in the next two years. Commissioners need to be appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. Call and pressure your senators when the time for confirmation comes. This can give us a fighting chance to overturn this ruling.