Thoughts on Consensus

By Cynthia Cook

If I had been asked a year ago to talk about consensus, I would have had some pretty familiar and straightforward things to say about a process in which everyone gets to feel heard, everyone can live with the decision, etc. This view was expressed at the 1998 AAGT community meeting during a discussion of the issue. I remember someone wondering what the question was, because consensus is a well-known method of decision making that involves specific steps. Where once I would have agreed, I now believe that the emphasis on decision-making is misplaced. Experiences over the past year, both with AAGT and Identity House, another organization I am involved with that also functions by consensus, have caused my sense of consensus to grow and deepen into something that seems almost too big for that word to contain.

In AAGT we begin with a consensus -- that we will use consensus. I realized that I have heard no discussion about why a group would choose such an unwieldy method. A common ground seems already implicit -- that we respect and value every voice, that we care that everyone feels heard. I think there are other background values that lead us to this process: for example, a concern to prevent the tyranny of the majority, the isolation of elements in the field that then serve to contain the projections of the majority. As Gestaltists, we value the role of conflict in destructuring fixed forms, making way for the creative solution, and letting go of habitual positions in order to identify with the coming solution.

Since consensus is a group process, in effect we are seeking the group figure and the group self. In this it seems we are guided by an ideal -- of a community that values and cares for all its members, whose concern ultimately is for this whole. The process of consensus supports conflicts and differences in ways that allow the group to destructure projections and introjects and explore the deeper background. Thus the trap of a conflict of objects, so easy to fall into with a yes/no decision, is avoided. By engaging in this process together we have stepped out of the polarities, and into dialogue, and this of itself, begins to change the definition of the problem. Attention to the integrity of the process and concern for the whole requires a letting go of egotism as its final challenge.

Consensus then is an attitude -- and this was articulated at the community meeting -- of good will and good faith, of caring more about the group process and less about the conclusion reached. This is almost a spiritual attitude - that by being together in a good way, respectfully inquiring of each other about our differences, we will find not necessarily a decision, but a creative solution that emerges from inventing and discovering our common ground. Where can we all stand together on this? What common ground supports the tension and range of differences?

An experience from earlier this year will illustrate what I am talking about. I belong to an organization called Identity House, a volunteer, membership-run peer counseling organization serving the lesbian, gay and bisexual population that was founded almost 25 years ago by members of the New York Institute for Gestalt Therapy. Identity House was, in fact, my introduction to Gestalt therapy. An elected Board administrates the organization on a monthly basis, with any policy decisions subject to review by the membership, which meets as a whole several times a year. The membership consists of volunteers who function as peer counselors, group facilitators and therapists. The Board had recently considered a request from a member that we start to verify the credentials of therapists who seek to work with the organization. This proposal generated tremendous interest and discussion, which took place in various venues within the organization, primarily in the weekly supervision groups, which are usually led by therapists and that counselors and group leaders are required to attend. The discussion culminated in a general membership meeting attended by 30 people for 4 hours on a Sunday afternoon to consider this one topic.

There were many strong feelings both for and against the proposal. Some people felt that the mistrust implicit in it was just a reflection of "the way the world is now," and that we should just adapt to it. Others (myself included) felt that if we had operated by adopting the general beliefs of the times, the organization never would have been formed, since homosexuality was then considered a pathology. From this starting polarity we began our inquiry into the background and experiential basis of the concern: had someone in the organization been found to have presented false credentials or in some way misrepresented themselves? Had this happened to someone here, or someone known to us? These answers were all negative, yet the concern persisted. So the group kept returning to the woman presenting the proposal, for in this group of mostly non-professionals it was accepted that her concern was serious and reasonable and deserved our attention. The process of the meeting was not that of a debate or an argument, but felt more like a circling, a checking in and rechecking (like a workshop with Richard Kitzler). We approached the issue from every point of view - legal, philosophical, historical, political, personal experience. One turning point occurred when a young man spoke of his sister who was murdered by her fiance', a man the family had taken in and embraced. This voiced and brought out into the open the underlying sense of vulnerability and lack of control that people fear.

Over the course of the meeting there was a palpable feeling in the room of something growing as we moved toward a common ground. By the end of four hours the proposal was no longer on the floor because the issue had been redefined. Rather than a concern about credentials, the group had identified a difference in the way the organization treats volunteer therapists and counselors/group facilitators. Whereas the peer volunteers must train with us, co-counsel/facilitate and spend time in supervision before they are eligible to work alone, therapists are eligible for referrals immediately without any comparable process for the group getting to know them, or for them to get to know the organization and its values. A powerful sense of excitement accompanied this shift into identifying a shared experience and a shared problem. An inequality and hierarchy embedded in our structure from the beginning had painstakingly been brought into awareness, through one brave and stubborn woman's efforts, and our willingness to explore with her what she might be expressing for us all. A proposal for correcting the problem was sketched out and referred to a clinical task force to develop and bring back to the group.

The organization, in effect, reaffirmed that we operate on the basis of our personal experience, and that the work of peer counseling (so similar to Gestalt) is to support people in trusting themselves and their perceptions. By treating each other with this respect, we maintained the support in the room to move past our initial defensive positions and resist both the tendency to go with that tension and to be polarizing. Instead, we kept inquiring into the background: what problem are you trying to solve? How do you experience the problem? What experience do we share?

The feeling of a group reaching this kind of unity is hard to put into words. I left that meeting feeling high - affirmed in who I am and where I come from and in the potential of this work we do. Not only did we address a conflict that initially seemed intransigent, we found a way to implement our beliefs on a deeper level, to live closer to our principles, and we got there by trusting them, trusting this process and each other.

It is also clear that certain supports are required for this to happen. At Identity House there were many forums for dialogue, which create opportunities for chewing the background to begin. We also had time -- 4 hours at this meeting and the option of scheduling another one if needed. Time allowed us to stay with the experience and definition of the problem without having to rush to a solution. A framework of experimenting and evaluating experiments keeps structures flexible and open. Having people who are experienced in the process provides a ground of faith and commitment that supports the whole group. Probably more than half the people attending that meeting had been involved with Identity House for more than 10 years.

As I look at the last AAGT community meeting, thinking in terms of what supports are required helps me identify why the process of that meeting felt better than in previous years, and clarifies some difficulties in the use of consensus within the organization.

First is the issue of preparing the ground. Discussions about consensus and its limitations within the context of administrating AAGT began well before the meeting. Then-president Charlie Bowman had addressed the issue to the membership in the newsletter. The conference program committee was struggling with issues of process and decision-making, and how to identify and contain differing desires for the conference. Several people, myself included, had volunteered to help organize the two-day community meeting that the membership had requested, and there were 5 of us involved in these discussions. Much of this dialogue took place on-line, and I believe it served as a background support for the different feeling that emerged at the meeting. Since we have the limitation of being geographically all over the place, we must find creative ways for this groundwork to occur, for this then changes the work that the group needs to do when it is together. It is an ongoing problem that there aren't many forums for these discussions. Having two days also allowed us to build ground together - to find out who we are.

Attitude is another important support: our attitude toward each other, the attitude of leadership, and toward leadership. Bruce Robertson, the incoming president, was very effective at the community meeting because, as he declared at several points, he was not invested in the outcome, which meant he could just pay attention to process and let the group tell him what was important. As a field phenomenon, the process requires that those less invested in the issue step forward as facilitators of process, and those who are invested to be willing to hear and be affected by the concerns of others. That is the leadership we all must offer, for consensus requires that we all take responsibility for participating, and not project that authority or responsibility elsewhere. If our concern is for addressing and staying with the conflict, because it is important to members of the group, then we must let go of oppositional thinking. Being heard supports listening. This was expressed at the meeting by talk of the rights and responsibilities of consensus, and the required attitude of good faith and good will. Consensus is exactly about not demonizing the other, but being willing to encounter them and find what connects us.

I believe that I felt more grounded and able to speak up at the community meeting because I experienced, and tried to offer, these supports. I engaged in a lot of dialogue with people before the meeting, and I deliberately cultivated an attitude of openess and lack of judgement. I was involved in a conflict that felt very serious to me involving the scheduling of some meetings during the conference. In trying to address it, I initially felt that I was being seen as a problem and that my concerns were not taken seriously. I persevered both in expressing the difficulty I was experiencing and in trying to understand the opposing perspective. Ultimately, I was invited in and included in the process, and so could become part of the solution.

The sense of being included is one of ease -- and it is easier to go with the need and the stream of the whole when I know I am heard. Then I feel more open, with less need to try and control the outcome. Before the final afternoon meeting, when many issues would be decided without a lot more time for process, I stood in the middle of the empty room. This was my own way of feeling grounded and centered in the group-- a part of the whole, loosening my attachment to the agenda I had come in with, open to where we could go as a group. As it turned out, certain issues I was invested in did not get resolved, and yet I was able to stay flexible and involved, rather than feeling discouraged or defeated, and as a result could find new creative avenues for my concerns.

Over the past year we have continued to discuss the limits of consensus in AAGT, most recently on the Conference Planning Committee. In the sense that I have been using the term, I do not believe there are any limitations. However, when we look at consensus as a form of decision-making, problems clearly arise. In this context, I among others have suggested there are times when we need to take a vote - when too many strong differences exist, and when an action is required by the organization. But we must agree that we need to take an action, and we must agree to take a vote, and we must acknowledge that the conflicts still remain - for that is the consensus, the reality, the common ground that we can stand together. I have argued that at these times a vote is preferable to a false, confluential consensus, because it allows for contactful closure. Charlie Bowman has referenced Paul Goodman's comments regarding the value of a sound defeat after giving the fight your all. I agree - in the context of the larger process. We must still live with our differences and how to contain them; we must be willing over time to be touched and moved by each other, to let go of our egotism and allow ourselves to change and become something new together.

I find that my understanding of consensus is still growing and deepening, and I am reminded in writing this of how much Gestalt therapy has to offer to those interested in the issues of community and political life. Our last three conference keynotes have each demonstrated important applications of Gestalt to the problems of the public sphere. The questions that come up in individual clinical work also apply in community life: what is empowering and supportive? What skills and strengths are needed, particularly for those disempowered by racism, abuse, etc.? How do we have good conflict, and how do we keep a lively peace? What prevents us from making contact? To me, these are questions both of a good psychotherapy and a more just world, of client health and effective citizenship. This is so clear at Identity House, that living experiment in community life inspired by the values of Gestalt therapy, where clinical work and participation in the life of the organization are considered a unity. In AAGT we face a similar challenge - to continually be aware of how being together is not different in a fundamental way from the work we do in our offices - is, in essence, the same work.

Gestalt therapy has grown enormously in recent years, with over 150 institutes worldwide and an increasing number of regional, national, and international conferences. Gestalt Review is responding to this growth by nurturing dialogue throughout the worldwide community of Gestalt practitioners, including the publication of translations of articles from other languages. Further, it appeals to readers outside the Gestalt community by providing a forum for exchanges among Gestalt and non-Gestalt practitioners and theorists; the journal aims to demonstrate the relevance of the Gesalt approach to clinicians and consultants who work with specific populations, systems, and problem areas. Gestalt Review concentrates on the Gestalt approach to clinical, family, group, and organizational topics. Case studies and papers dealing with specific clinical issues are regularly featured, but the journal also publishes original papers dealing with politics, philosophy, culture, and gender.

Here is my take on consensus of AAGT:

Consensus has several dictionary meanings, including the agreement or accord of a majority and the unanimous agreement of opinion in a group. We have been attentive to both the process and the outcome of conversations and deliberations in the attainment of decisions and expressions of the sense of our community. Our intent for outcomes is the development of the most inclusive kind of agreement or accord. In contrast to winner take all, majority gets its way, or minority holds power over the majority, our aim is to engage the greatest diversity of perspectives in the effort to include as much from all of these as is possible and effective. In addition, when an accord or agreement has been reached, effort is extended to learn what has not been included, who has not been heard, what is being left behind, and in that endeavor affirming the agreement or accord that has been attained as well as respective of the ground of what has not been included. Consensus, thus, is more than agreement or accord; it is a lively, engaging, aggressive, supportive process of community-building.