Introduction

We go into activist movements with others to work for issues of peace, economic and social justice, environmental care, and create groups that support all of these goals. We forge alliances that we hope will bring about the needed changes that we envision. If we wish to make peaceful and consensual changes, all those who would be affected by those changes also will need to accept them. This is the core of true democratic change and it is the object of consensus, the subject of this primer.

This manual tries to deal with the problems of forging the alliances that lead to changes without coercion, compulsion, constraint, or any other kind of forceful, violent energy. Throughout this primer, the problem will be to work for peaceful non–coercive change, change accepted, if not embraced, by those whom it affects.

It is divided into two parts. The first part provides a definition of consensus useful to activists interested in peaceful social change, how it may be practiced, and some ways in which it can be used to bring the change desired. The second part attempts to locate the role of consensus in changing our society for the better. There is a brief history of consensus as Quakers have practiced it for over 350 years which provides some perspective on its relevance for today's activists.

This primer is not designed to show you the step–by–step process for practicing consensus. ROSC (Resources for Organizing and Social Change, publisher of this primer) has other companion publications to describe that process. Look for those attached to this primer or on the web site.

Consensus: a Nonviolent Group Process

Consensus can be defined as a nonviolent decision–making process in which a group takes only actions to which all of the members have consented. It is based on the assumption that every member has some of the solution, and that no one has all of the solution. Therefore, every member's input has value, nobody is coerced or overridden, all have the right to speak and the responsibility to listen, and no decision is made at the expense of those making it, nor of those whom it may affect. (Quakers call the decision "a sense of the meeting" to which there is no objection.) [2]

This primer is addressed to the individual and the group; to the individual, so that s/he may understand how her/his perceptions, understanding, and behavior may be relevant to the activist group. It is addressed to the group so that it will operate not only to meet the needs the group itself, but the needs of each person in it.

The Basics of Consensus

The Quakers (known formally as The Religious Society of Friends) began developing consensus in the 1650's. Although it was used by them primarily for their internal process, they sought to present a nonviolent face—their dictum was, "speak truth to power"—to the social forces surrounding them.

Eight principles of Quaker decision making have evolved and form the basis for much of present day consensual practice and the basis of this primer [3]:

1. unanimous decision—no voting;
2. silent periods—at start and/or end of meeting and when conflict arises;
3. moratorium—when agreement cannot be reached;
4. participation by all with ideas on the subject;
5. learning to listen—not going to meeting with mind made up;
6. absence of leaders—the clerk steers but does not dominate;
7. nobody outranks anybody else;
8. factual focus—emotions kept to a minimum.

In an activist group, these principles, if applied as outlined in the following pages, will lead to group decisions based on each member's contributions to the discussion. And, if the group is committed to peaceful change, consensus, as a nonviolent decision–making process, will support this change. It is, then, practicing what we preach, putting our money where our mouth is, walking the walk of peaceful social change. Consensus will strengthen the positive values of that change.

Where Consensus May Be Used

Consensus may be used in any small group [4] in which all of the participants agree to use it. If there is no agreement at the start, then the basis for consensual decision–making and action will not be there. The first order of business is to agree to use consensus as the group's decision–making process. If the group goes ahead without this initial agreement this would in itself be a violation of the principle of consensus and if not dealt with would lead to confusion and uncertainty at best.

Two factors are essential to making group consensus work: trust, and training. Both of these factors will taken up later. Consensus requires that the members be committed to working with each other for the goals of the group. Such a commitment is not to be assumed; there may be many reasons that potential members would not be ready for it. Foremost, especially in a group that has been formed for some specific activist purpose, is that the members may not know each other. They may not feel they have the time to form the kind of group that requires the trust and training that is the basis of consensual process.

These and other considerations may work against accepting the consensual process. Robert's Rules of Order (see below), or some other set of rules for voting, would appear less involved and more certain of getting a working decision. There may be practical reasons for not engaging the consensual process, or the individual may have attitudes or personally comfortable ways of relating to others that exclude group consensus or could defeat attempts to reach it.

The Ladder & the Wheel: Circular or Linear Group Work

Exchanges in a group can be linear, going up or down the hierarchical ladder, or circular, around the wheel. Consensus calls for circular exchanges, where any member can speak to any other member; linear exchanges constrain members to fixed patterns of interaction and inhibit full member participation. Members in a circular network have easy visual and verbal contact with each other. They are not constrained to follow the linear "channels" that seating in an auditorium suggests. The freedom of expression possible through the wheel will lead to the sense of equality upon which affinity [see below] will thrive and creative exchange will be encouraged.

Consensual Attitudes [5]

Some attitudes support consensus; other attitudes do not. There are situations in which consensus would not work, be useful or appropriate, such as competitive situations, casual assemblies, confrontations, or groups that have established rules of order and/or a hierarchical group structure. [6]

Some attitudes and behaviors that support consensus, and some contrasting ones that do not, are listed below. While some of the contrasting attitudes may appear to be negative, they are not necessarily to be scorned. There are situations in which they may be appropriate or even necessary for the person's own needs or use to the group. "The lone wolf" may just have the knowledge or experience that the consensual group can use for a better decision. In such cases, it is the group, employing consensus to incorporate the contribution of "the lone wolf" into the decision, with which we are concerned.

• group–centered vs. individual efforts (the lone wolf)—believing that the solution lies in everybody's contribution vs. individual expertise or abilities;
• diversity vs. uniformity—working with differences rather than offering or imposing "one size fits all" solutions;
• cooperation vs. competition—concern for other's needs vs. looking out for one's self;
• respect vs. disregard—the rights of others are recognized, not ignored;
• nvolvement vs. detachment—taking part in a decision vs. letting others do it, and representing us;
• accommodating vs. rejecting—open to others' ideas vs. putting them down;
• directness vs. obliqueness, innuendo—speaking to the point rather than "beating around the bush";
• plain spoken vs. eloquent—simple statements about the group work rather than fancy verbal flights;
• specificity vs. generality—speaking directly to the business at hand rather than making statements about what is "true", "obvious", "understood", and so on;
• discussing vs. debating—seeking the truth of the matter rather than trying to promote a particular point of view;
• sharing vs. keeping to one's self—putting one's ideas "on the table" rather than holding them back;
• flexibility vs. polarization—dealing with the complexities of change rather than looking for black and white solutions;
• speaking for one's self vs. pairing—"standing up" for one's own ideas rather than trying to get others to "back me up".

Affinity: Social Lubricant [6]

Consensus requires a unified group; it does not thrive in casual associations in which members come and go as they like. Affinity, as a sympathy shared by a community of interest, [7] could be called a social lubricant with which the engine of consensus can run most smoothly. As an attractive force between people that causes them to enter into and remain in an action group, affinity is the group's foundation for consensus. For new groups with unfamiliar members, establishing affinity should be the first order of business.

 Sharing. Every member will come into the group meeting bearing her or his particular feelings and thoughts about the group and its purposes. Whether they are related to the group business or not is beside the point; left unspoken they can cloud the process. Sharing those thoughts and feelings is a first step in clearing members' minds and emotions for the work ahead. This process can be as simple as a go round in which each person talks about her or his hopes and goals for the group. Understanding. Sharing should lead to understanding the members' concerns about the group work. Questions are very much in order where misunderstandings may arise about members' positions on the important issues. Clarification and agreements on the group goals will lead to affinity.

Words: defining meanings. Words which are important for understanding group issues can quickly become the focal point of a discussion. For clarification, members will need to agree on meanings. For example, "liberal" if a key word in the discussion, should have an agreed definition.

Agreement. The consensual process requires substantial agreement if it is to be successful. If a member does not agree with the direction or a major point, then proceeding with consensus can impair affinity. Therefore, the group should clear up misunderstandings of basic questions about itself and its members.

Group culture. An activist group may be made up people from many different social settings, who carry with them different cultural identity markers.  Skin color, age, gender, and body types, of course, and many more subtle signs, such as pants or jeans, and collars or tee shirts, haircuts and hairdos, that will mark one member from another. For activists, such obvious diversity is often much to be desired; from such a mix the problem to be solved is creating a common group/issue culture with which the members can identify as activists for the work of the group.

Developing a group name, making banners and posters, having a mailing and street address, practicing songs to sing, having T–shirts or buttons, having a pot–luck lunch or dinner will create those obvious signs of belonging. Then there are the more subtle markers, such as common denominators in the member's histories, backgrounds, and attitudes toward the issue at hand.

Housekeeping. A social action group should keep a record by which not only its members but others may keep track of its goals and work. Also, unless some kind of surprise is part of its plan, what it plans to do should be publicized (hopefully, awareness of its action will serve its purpose better than ignorance). Careful minutes of meetings will aid greatly in following the consensual process as it unfolds. Such attention to detail will add to the group's standing in the larger community by underlining the seriousness of its mission and the dedication of its members.

Eliminating Stereotyping. We can all recognize stereotyping in others. We are less likely to see it in ourselves. It isolates us and promotes attitudes based often on the kinds of cultural markers we discussed under "Group Culture" above. Ethnicity, race, region, religion, ability, class, age, and sexual orientation provide fuel, through their physical markers, for the fire of "you know what s/he is like . . . ." They provide the most obvious channels for potentially divisive issues, but there are many more subtle ones, like gender itself, in which issues like seduction or male and female stereotyping may well be lurking behind the curtain of civility. Like fire, stereotyping can burn the social fabric and lead to the perception that s/he is not like me. More subtly, sterotyping can lead to superficial perceptions of agreement. "We think alike" may be as predjudiced a belief as "s/he does not believe as I do". Unhappily, American political campaigns mine a rich lode of stereotypes, both positive and negative, which become the language of the "debate", and are manipulated like chess pieces between the opponents.

The activist group, to have consensus, must base its decisions on the reality that each member brings to the group. This is the essence of the democratic process, so it should be clear that stereotypes, whether good or bad, hurtful or pleasing, soothing or disquieting, will draw a veil over the reality of the action and the activist group can find itself tilting at windmills of its own making. In other words, the activist group working with false assumptions may find its actions irrelevant to or misleading on the issue with which it is concerned.

Goal setting. Goal setting will define the group's effort and point the way to achieve those goals. More broadly, goal setting will focus attention on the reasons that have brought the group together and where it wants to go. It is the capstone to affinity.

Establishing Trust through Communication

Sharing, understanding, defining meaning, establishing the process, agreement, goal setting, cultural generation, and eliminating harmful stereotypes require communication, transferring sensible messages from one person to others. If this sounds pretty obvious, it is. Sensible messages are the basis for working in a consensual group. Assumptions, unspoken concerns, hidden agendas, and cloudy communication are not. And it should also be obvious, in a group drawn together from a mixture of folk who very likely are unfamiliar with consensus or each other, that clear communication of each step in the process is crucial for success. The clearer the communication, and the more generally it is understood by all the members, the greater the trust, and, consequently, the more cooperative the action will be [8].

Guidelines for the Practice of Consensus

Activists using consensus decision–making should first of all agree on the guidelines to be followed in the decision–making process. The guides suggested here are, one might say, the bottom line for a fully consensual process. The guidelines emphasize the goals for change with which activists will be concerned. Also, they can be used in less formal groups that can spontaneously arise to address particular problems:

Group Roles

Facilitator. One member (or more if the group so agrees) of the group will have the task of keeping the consensual process moving. If s/he wishes to speak to the subject of the discussion, her/his contributions should be clearly noted and follow those of the other participants. If there is any question about the chair's influence on an important decision, s/he can "stand down" when making the remarks. The chair should be selected by mutual consent, and the term of the chair, whether for one hour or longer, should be established by the same process. But in the concensus process, any member may step in to help it along. Some things for which the facilitators are responsible:

• seeing that the agenda and time limits are followed;
• maintaining a neutral and objective tone to her/his own interventions;
• insuring participation by recognizing all who want to speak, and seeking comments by those who are silent. A good rule is to make sure that all who would speak get that chance before anybody gets recognized for a second comment. The facilitater's focus should be on empowering all to speak rather than permitting a few to dominate;
• calling for "the sense of the meeting" when it appears to have been reached on any particular topic or issue. Any member may help the facilitator in this process;
• summarizing, if it appears useful, where the discussion is at the moment, or asking the group for guidance if that appears necessary;
• calling for "a moment of silence" if the discussion should become heated or off the point or confused.

Note–taker. One member should keep a running account of the discussion and decisions.

Time–keeper. Time schedules should be strictly followed. Changes should be agreed to by all members. Meetings should start at the posted time.

"Vibes–watcher". Her/his job is to keep close watch on the process by helping with clarification, misunderstandings, and facilitating participation. S/he should be particularly responsible for calling for "a minute of silence" when tempers rise.

An agenda. A written list of the business for the meeting should be posted either on paper with copies for all or posted on a board. Items for future meetings should be included, as well as new business. Agenda items which are the outside work of several members should be noted as such. "Hidden agendas", business which is promoted by the interests of a sub–group of the members, perhaps with the support of outsiders, undermines the consensual process.

Speaking. Any group member (as determined by the group) may speak to the business at hand. It is the speaker's responsibility to be factual, brief, to the point, and not repetitious. Negative ( "I think you are wrong") or argumentative ("I wouldn't do it that way") comments will tend to erode the foundation being built for consensus. Guests should speak only with the consent of the group.

"Pairing." When a sub–group has already come to a prior agreement, this directly undermines the consensual process, and can lead to decisions based not on the agreement of all the members, but on that sub–group's agenda. Interruptions. They undermine the consensual process, Criticism, doubts, or disagreements about another's' contributions may be stated as a question or a lack of clarity on the questioner's part. Questions which convey an interest in seeking the truth are compatible with the consensual process. Inappropriate, unrelated, hairsplitting, or quibbling remarks, whether identified as such or not, can impede consensus, and are best avoided.

Member alliances. Members should speak only for themselves. "Backing up," by such remarks as "s/he is right," (to pick an obvious example in which the argument is shifted from the issue to a person), or seeking others' approval in an effort to argue a particular viewpoint or opinion, rather than staying with the facts at issue, will undermine consensus.

Decisions. Decisions are unanimous; there is no voting in consensus. If the group has reached the point of recording a decision, and one member (or more) objects, then, to be true to the spirit of consensus, the action must be halted until the member's objection has been considered. Then, either an objection is satisfied and a decision is made (with concerns or non–blocking objections noted), or, if s/he is still adamant in opposition to the decision, it is, in consensus, enough to modify the decision or set it aside. There are several actions available to the objecting member, listed below more or less in order of the member's strength of concern about the decision. Each of these actions should be clearly announced for what it is, so that all the members will have it in mind as they proceed:

• non–support. The member registers her/his objection to the proposed decision. There is the danger that the objecting member's views will not be known or discounted if s/he does not voice them. The process proceeds to a decision;
• reservations. The member objects to or finds certain aspects of the decision objectionable, states this for all to hear, but accepts the decision;
• recording dissent. The member's objections to the decision are made a part of the written record of the meeting;
• standing aside. The dissenting member opposes the decision, and, duly recorded, "stands aside". S/he allows the decision to stand.
• blocking the action. If a member feels strongly that the decision should not be made as it has been formulated, s/he may announce that s/he is 'blocking," or "standing in the way".  The burden of proceeding then falls on the group. If they cannot produce acceptable modifications, the action fails, or is put aside to be taken up again at some future date. For an action group created to accomplish one or several changes, blocking the action may seem to "gut" the group, to take away its purpose. In consensus, the group is obliged to honor her/his concerns by seeking some alteration in the decision that will meet her/his objections [9] and, therefore, must be clear on reasons for a blocking objection.  At the same time, the blocking member should understand there is potential injury to the process if s/he persists. However, many groups have become stronger when a member blocked a decision, because they recognized and respected the member's strongly held beliefs. Often the group persisted and found a "third way" solution that was embraced by all members with enthusiasm.
• Member withdrawal. Blocking the action in a consensus group in which decisions are unanimous is a matter of great weight, and the consequences potentially destructive of the trust, good will, and affinity of the activist group. If the group wants to go ahead with the decision, the objector may well consider voluntary withdrawal from the group. If not, the group, in the interests of the morale of the group, may request it.

Compromising consensus

To paraphrase Abraham Lincoln's definition of democracy [10] , to the extent that these guidelines are in practice hedged about with "exceptions to the rule", to that extent consensus will most probably be compromised. Activists should guard against making exceptions to these guides "in the interests of time or expediency."

The "modified" consensual process, in which voting is used when unanimous agreement cannot be reached, seriously compromises the process and cannot be called consensus. Straw polls and other methods to gauge group sentiment may reveal feelings but do not necessarily contribute to consensus.

A group may abandon consensus because "it will take too long". But consensus has been used for quick decision–making for centuries. Consensus can deal with time–limited situations especially if anticipated in advance.

The Outside World: relating to other groups and organizations

No activist group that uses consensus can afford to view its relationship with others sanguinely. It will always experience pressures to compromise its internal integrity. An understanding of the potential for this is crucial to dealing with the relationships, and should be a central concern of the group.

"Inter–group dynamics" refers to the relationship between one group and another, and is distinct from the internal dynamics of a group.

Dealing with "The Outside World." Inter–group dynamics will in part depend on the relative size of the target group: big groups, like big fish, tend to ignore or swallow little groups which challenge them. The hierarchical organization—that is, with a director, perhaps, and assistants and so on—and likely to be set on some prior "position" it has adopted, may be less willing to respond to the objective concerns raised by the small activist group. It may try to dictate the terms of the engagement with the activist group. If the small group is clear about its identity and purpose, however, it can resist efforts to weaken its purpose and may earn the respect of a larger one.

A Special Danger. Faced with a large, rigid, and unresponsive organization, the activist group will be tempted to emulate it. That is, believing that its consensual process may be seen as a sign of weakness by the organization, the group's members may short–circuit consensus and take an aggressive action meant to impress the larger group. As in a military group which depends on unquestioning soldiers to attack an enemy position, the activists may develop a leader and followers to present a unified front in the belief that in that way they will have more influence.

It may press its members to conform to a particular course of action to improve its effect on the larger group, and short–circuit its own consensual process. A sign of a breakdown is characterizing the other group in some way. This promotes stereotypical thinking, develops leaders and followers, and internal and external avenues of influence developed to push the action, compromising the consensual process.

Dealing with "People Like Us".

A consensual group which is trying to coordinate its action with other activists groups may be subjected to special pressures. Generally speaking, the pressure may be to take over the other group, be taken over by it, merge with it, or, paradoxically, to insulate itself from the other group. Any of these actions might make objective sense, and be brought up for discussion and consensus. Problems of envy, jealousy, or personal power, especially, may get in the way of rational concerns when dealing with peer groups.

Consensus requires an inquiring mind. The activist should be prepared to jettison any hard and fast ideas of the kind of action that is desirable in dealing with other groups. Advocates of strong leadership may argue that when the wolves are at the door or the bear is to be bearded in its den and quick action is required, a working group cannot afford the luxury of a "debate"; in other words, the consensual process.

Such advocates will usually find that the wolves at the door must be driven away. They are not satisfied with keeping the door closed to see if the wolves will go away. Similarly, the bear MUST be bearded. In other words, an activist group is constantly pushed to act quickly, whether agreed to by the group or not. That is better than no action, where a "wait and see what happens" attitude is seen as defeatist.

But aside from emergencies, consensus, which weighs all of the input from its members, will almost always result in a better action than one dictated by one or two of its members. Even in improbable situations such as the "moon explorer" exercise [11], in which the players pretend they have gotten lost, individuals almost invariably do poorer than the group in selecting the equipment necessary to survive an emergency hike on the moon.

The Problem of Leadership

Leadership as it is generally understood can be problematic in an activist group. In "The Emperor Jones" [12], Jones, on a small island kingdom, goes mad as his power so frightens those around him that they dare not challenge his delusions. It is another take on "the emperor has no clothes" and suggests that extreme leadership can have extreme consequences [13]. In the consensual group, a member with prior concerns about the issue and a particular agenda should submit her/his concerns to the group. If, instead, s/he directs the discussion of the issue, the consensual process will be compromised.

Shared leadership. The consensual process depends on circular participation in which any member may direct the discussion by a question or a comment, while the facilitator observes progress toward the goal. A member may emerge as particularly knowledgeable or articulate about the issue. Her/his contributions, taken as actions to meet the goals of the group rather than attempts to promote her/his own agenda, can promote "shared leadership" in which other members may also contribute, and the consensual process will be maintained.

The challenge of shared leadership in a consensual group is to marry the needs of the group with whatever external demands may be placed on it by interested parties and yet maintain the integrity of its consensual process. For example, an organization may request that the activist group send a representative to its councils. If the group selects the representative for the particular task, it will support the process. Leadership treated as function of the group to represent its view rather than as authority vested in a particular member will serve the needs of the group instead of the needs of a particular person. An "Emperor Jones" will not arise in the group to substitute her/his needs for its agenda.

Groupthink: Breakdown of Consensus

An activist group, especially when it feels threats from other groups or organizations, may begin to operate in consensually dysfunctional ways. Time limits and other restrictions may then be imposed on the consensual process. Signs that consensus is breaking down are listed here under the term groupthink [14] which can be defined as a comment or action designed to steer the group in some conclusion or direction based on concerns having no necessary relationship to the issue the group is trying to resolve.

Groupthink, whether it arises from predetermined ideas, predjudice, or some stress in the group process itself, will tend to push the members to some agreement based not on the reality it is facing.  For example, a "Christian" group, when faced with dealing with an Islamic group, may resort to categorical thinking which assumes that "all Muslims think alike", and fail to see the differences between Sunnis and Shiites, a failure that can lead to disasterous actions for both groups. Groupthink could fairly be applied to the "neocon" thinking that led the United States to mount war against the Iraqi people. Members are pressed to make decisions that short–circuit and override the consensual process. The consensual process can be overridden by groupthink in a number of ways:

• Group wide participation vs. repeating "points". General participation in which all ideas are examined yields to a repetion of points already made. From "let's hear from others" rather than "this is what we decided";
• Open and easy questioning vs. restrictive commentary. Through "is this what we want to do?" instead of "this is what we want to do";
• Discussion vs. exhortation. From responsive dialog to argumentative statements. From "your point is . . . ."  vs. "this is what we ought to be talking about";
• Consideration of the ethics vs. moralistic statements about right and wrong. Analysis of the situation for its effect on the parties involved is replaced by broad statements about what's right and wrong. "What should we do?" vs. "we ought to do this";
• Assessment of the facts vs. assumptions about the situation. Deliberate consideration yields to hurried (and often impatient) statements. "what's really going on?" vs. "We already know that";
• Frankness vs. construction. The proposition under examination yields to uncritical perceptions. "This is the way it looks to me" vs. "This is the way it goes";
• Speaking for one's self vs. speaking for the group. From "This is my thought" to "this is what the group thinks";
• Realistic vs. illusory goals. Native caution and healthy doubt are overcome by a sense of infallibility and risk–taking. "This is what we can do" vs. "We can do whatever we want to do";
• Consideration vs. promotion of a point. Evaluating vs. arguing for a point of view.  "We shall see" vs. "this is the way to go";
• General participation vs. patterned argument. Undirected and unsolicited contributions by the individual members vs. orchestrated and targeted observations, remarks, and replies;
• Seeking diversity vs. ignoring dissent. From incorporating differences to overlooking them. "There are different points of view" to "There is general agreement" (when there isn't);

This is just a partial listing of the symptoms of a dysfunctional consensual group that has put action ahead of reason.. The reader will see that the breakdown of the consensual process paves the way for a process based not on the considered contributions of the members but the unconsidered motives of the one or few who are controlling  the process.

In a working consensual group, attempts to pirate the group's energy can be stopped by invoking the guidelines for establishing consensus and the member whose exhortations are leading into groupthink will have to deal with the reality of fellow members' skepticism of her/his contributions.

Majority Rule: Control of the Group

Majority rule is a political device concerned with gaining and holding control of the decision–making process in the group. The ballot, a show of hands, or some method is used to determine agreement or disagreement and thus reaching a decision binding on all the members.  However weighty  a particular contribution, its value is subject to the yeas and nays which it garners in debate, which in turn is strictly controlled by the "rules of order", such as Robert's Rules of Order, which govern who may participate, for how long, and in what order. Such control has an important place in the civic process, especially when different groups, sharing little in the way of personal or ideational ties, come together as in a town meeting,  needing to make decisions. Rules of order, accepted by the participants, can control discussion and result in a decision in good time.

Weight vs. numbers. In a consensual group, control of the process by the numbers (votes) rather than by the weight or value of the contributions can lead to poor decisions by groupthink in which creative thinking and criticism are suppressed. The process of consensus is generated by needs, feelings, thoughts, ideas, and opinions of each of its participants. This creates the weight of the group decision. Weight stands in direct opposition to numbers which control decisions made in meetings using some system of counting the yeas and the nays. Weight refers to the gravity of the issue, the quality of the arguments in support and opposition, and it registers the centrality and the depth of the feelings as well as the reality of the ideas which are presented in the decision making process.

In a recent town meeting, the vote for or against the compensation for the chief of the volunteer fire department could have been easily determined by a simple "yes" vote when the question was raised. It was only forstalled by the chief himself when he detailed the nature of the job. The reality of the job then overcame the impending argument between "bleeding heart liberals" and the "stoney hearted conservatives" of what was "enough" for a volunteer fire chief.

Consensus here, rather than appearing to stand in direct opposition to the operation of due process and the control of decisions by vote, was included in that process. Had it not been, the majority would have automaticaly voted for a figure that would have had a demoralizing effect on the chief and the members of the fire department. In this case, the weight of the issue rather than the untutored numbers for or against it, guided the outcome. The basic rules of the consensual meeting are as demanding of good order as are those of a New England town meeting run by the numbers.

And consensus makes decisions based on everybody's concerns, avoiding rewarding some sub–group who, with their own agenda, would take control of the debate and call a vote when it may favor their sub–agenda instead of the group as a whole. The weight of the argument becomes irrelevant when the discussion is cut off by a hurried "I move the question" which results in an "up or down" vote. Such a process, while it tries to settle the question, has great potential for creating divisions and the estrangements that lead to social divisions.

Violent Group Process

We may think of violence in a group as some physical threat or action that results in blows or worse, and not something that can happen in a deliberative body, and certainly not in a group employing consensus.  Angry words may result in physical violence, whether it is our city streets or in an august group like the United States Senate [15].  There is an exercise in the AVP (Alternatives to Violence Project) Basic Manual [16], "What is Violence?" where, typically, the participants, inmates with records of assault and murder, brainstorm thirty to forty different kinds of violence.

"Criticism", "put downs", "arguments", "loud talking", "interruptions", "not listening", "not hearing", even "misunderstanding" are mentioned far more than physical acts such rape and shooting, which suggests that violence can underlie seemingly reasonable discussion.

If in an action group emotions flare and strong feelings are expressed,  achieving consensus may call for active peacemaking. In fact, as the members become more involved in the business for which they came together, feelings will become stronger, and the possibilities for violent (verbal) confrontation will be that much greater. It would do well if the group acknowledged this possibility and made plans to deal with it peacefully. Quakers will call for "a moment of silence" when the exchange becomes heated.

Passion is not violence. Emotion, which may be mistaken as violence,  is, however, what makes human relationships meaningful. Important issues may raise the "temperature" of the exchange in the group. Heat may very well warm the discussion, but that can mean the participants are actually drawing closer in their views. It is rather like blacksmithing, the iron must be heated to reform it. So, a person's opinions may have to be "heated" in order to be changed. If treated with respect, an apparently angry exchange may very well lead to agreement that furthers the consensual process.

Dealing with passion constructivly is not easily taught, but there are methods for approaching it. These are taken up in other publications on consensus and conflict resolution, but they are beyond the scope of this primer.

Consensus: Building Block of a Civil Society

We defined consensus in an activist group as a nonviolent decision–making process to which all  members have consented. But in a more general sense, consensus is a social state of equality, and the agreement, accord, sympathy, or common feeling that can arise among people bent on being and acting together [17]. Nonviolence is implied, and we can see the profound importance of the process in bringing civility to the social process. In a word, it is socializing the human animal. It is difficult to imagine a human society that does not rely on consensus for healthy growth and behavior. Also implied in this definition, as it is explicit in its use in action groups, is that it is the exchange between all, young and old, rich and poor, male and female, on which consensus depends. Even in the animal world, such exchanges have changed the behavior of the group. In Japan, a monkey tribe changed its diet by following the example of one young member who had eaten something the tribe had avoided before.

History of Consensus

The philosophical roots of consensus can be found in the writings of twelfth century scholastic philosophers. Those times were a ferment of thinking about the nature of individual liberty and state authority. "Roman civil law and canon law and feudal law  .  .  .  proclaimed the equality of all men (sic)" [18]. The fantasy that the emperor was immortal and individuals existed to serve the state, the divine right of kings, was essentially dead by the 1680's,  The Quakers, as they came to be known in King George II's reign, based their religious practice on the sanctity of the individual, not the Church of England and its clergy. They established The Religious Society of Friends in 1668. Today, Friends practice consensus in discerning spiritual matters and the business of the Society.

The process of consensus is based on the belief that it is individual human striving that invests meaning in the group, the community, and the state. So consensus stands against all manipulation, domination, mastery, subjugation, tyranny or control of the civil process by one class or faction over all others. It is all of the people, all of the time, acting peacefully together, that make social action.

Consensus as a Way of Life

Consensus, as the social mechanism for group decisions, fully socializes the participants. It provides a direct connection between one and others, resulting in the communication of those feelings and thoughts that tell what the individual is in human terms. "We" would not exist as human beings without this exchange. It tells us who we are, where we are, how we are, and, unique to our humanness, where we would like to go. It never ceases to define us and lead us to civil behavior. [19] The consensual process involves the individual at a level that calls for her/his responsible participation in the social process. It will require thoughtful, reflective, truth–seeking, caring, compassionate, and sensitive concern for each other. This is as it should be if we believe that all social intercourse should improve the human condition.

The young monkey who added a new food to the clan's menu certainly advanced their condition by expanding their diet. So each member of an action group may help to expand the perception of the problems the group is seeking to solve. In that way, a problem that each thinks they carry alone becomes a common problem and the group the social solution to that problem.

For the individual who has learned this truth about her/his place in the social contract, there is no turning away. S/he must seek out the truth as it will be revealed in her/his taking part with those others who also seek to improve the human condition. This is a spiritual quest, not to be sought by a show of hands, but by moving hand in hand toward a new understanding of what must be done together to take part in the human enterprise. As the Quakers would put it, to see the light and that of God in everyone.

FOOTNOTES

1. In modern use .  .  . denoting a social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences in rank or privilege. The Oxford Universal Dictionary, Third Ed., The Clarendon Press, 1955.

2. Consensus has also been practiced by the Iroquois Nation and other Native American tribes, probably for centuries. While noting this so history is not ignored, this primer on consensus is based on its use with Quaker meetings and in activist groups.

3. See Michael J. Sheeran, Beyond Majority Rule: Voteless Decisions in the Religious Society of Friends, Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, 1515 Cherry St., Philadelphia, PA 19102, 1983.

4. A "small" group may consist of from three to as many people as can converse with one with another with ease. In a  Quaker business meeting, for example, this may be as many as a hundred or more. For most purposes, fifteen to twenty would be the upper limit for decisions that present fundamental changes in attitude, thinking, and action, in which consensus could be expected to fully involve all the participants. The upper limit would be lower with unfamiliar participants and higher with experienced, disciplined participants. A large group can employ sub–groups to afford every member with full consensual participation.

5. Adapted from "Some attitudes of consensus and their contrasts",  a paper from INVERT (1979) and updated by Larry Dansinger, Resources for Organizing and Social Change, (2006).

6. Stuart Chase, Roads to Agreement, New York: Harpers, 1951, pp. 51–52.

7. See Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 7th ed., 1965, where it is also described as "an attractive force between  .  .  .  particles that causes them to enter into and remain in chemical combination," which seems an apt description of a group operating with consensus.

8. See James L. Loomis, "Communication, the development of trust, and cooperative behavior," Human Relations, vol.12, no. 4, 1959, pp. 289–392, for an experimental investigation of trusting and trustworthy perceptions and behavior.

9. Strictly speaking, the integrity of the consensual process hangs in the balance. In Quaker process, the action must be laid aside; the implications for the meeting are grave if some move to override the objection. It could, and has, led to the breakdown of spiritual community. In an action group, where the sole or primary reason for coming together is to act on some specified problem, such as the attempt by a corporation to build a supermarket on an environmentally sensitive wetland, the members may not share much if any everyday communality which would hold them together through such a division. Therefore, it is probably more realistic for the group to foresee the possibility and plan for a way to deal with it to which all can agree. Of course, if the members fail to agree on how to disagree, it may be taken as an augury of the ultimate failure of consensus and behooves the members to examine their reasons for which they came together in the first place!

10. "As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the difference, is no democracy". Abraham Lincoln, August 1, 1858.

11. There are several versions of this exercise. Alternatives to Violence Project, Inc., publishes one in its AVP Manual: Basic Course, Alternatives to Violence Project, 3049 East Genesee St., Syacuse, NY 13224, 1994.

12. Eugene O'Neill, The Emperor Jones, 1920 [a play].

13. The Jonestown suicides and the Branch Davidian deaths are both examples of leadership gone badly wrong. In both cases, leadership was attributed to individuals with, among other attributes, charismatic and commanding presences.

14. The reader is referred to Alice H. Mack, Developing Shared Leadership in Groups; consensus decision–making and group process basics. Connexions Unlimited WorldVision, 6336 N. Oracle Rd. #326–314 Tucson, AZ 85704, 1997.

15. Sumner, speaking against slavery in a speech titled "The Crime against Kansas", ".  .  .singled out a southern senator for his invective. The violence implied in his speech apparently led to the southern senator's nephew attacking Sumner on the Senate floor with a cane. It took Sumner three years to recover from the attack. See Sumner, Charles, The Columbia Encyclopedia, 3d ed., Columbia University Press, 1963.

16. AVP Manual: Basic Course, Alternatives to Violence Project, 3049 East Genesee St., Syacuse, NY 13224, 1994. AVP has been running workshops in prisons on nonviolent group and individual behavior for over thirty years.

17. The orchestra conductor, while s/he may be said to lead, in fact collaborates with the members of the orchestra in creating music that depends on as nearly a perfect consensus as can be expected from a group of any sort. Affinity, understanding, communication, goal setting, trust, and so on, all must be essential to successfully performing Beethoven's 9th Symphony. (I am indebted to my good friend Bernie Beckman for this example of leadership.)

18. See Maurice DeWulf, Philosophy and Civilization in the Middle Ages, New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1953.

19. Newton Garver and Eric Reitan, Nonviolence and Community: Reflections on the Alternatives to Violence Project, PHP Pamphlet 322, Pendle Hill Publications, Wallingford, PA, 19086, 44 pp.

Published in 2008 by: Resources for Organizing and Social Change, 161 Stovepipe Alley, Monroe, ME 04951, (207) 525–7776, rosc@psouth.net