The real problem is that there is a tyranny of sorts involved, whether by the majority or the minority is not really all that important. Consensus building should be the norm, not to ram your view down other people's throats because you can.
I does not force them to find consensus, but if you‘re the minority you just have to „accept“ your loss and do as the majorities optinion were you‘re opinion. Which makes - imo - an oppisiotion useless, which is a good thing (you can‘t block progress if you don‘t agree).
I don't disagree that many groups could get closer to consensus with better meeting management, but in practice building consensus is often an illusion. I've been in organizations where building consensus meant continuing to meet and rehash until the minority group got sick of meeting and stopped arguing. Then we voted and the majority ruled, but there was still no consensus. Massive waste of time. Make your case succinctly, vote, and move on. You win some and you lose some.
Problems arise when the minority opinion members can't recognize the possibility that they were perhaps wrong or perhaps not seeing the complete picture. No truly productive debate can ever occur unless both sides are willing to recognize the very real possibility that they are wrong or at least that there are often multiple reasonable ways to solve a problem.
We don't need consensus since consensus is impossible with a large population. You just need a vast majority and the vast majority agree on the winning condition.
I don't think consensus-building is necessarily bad on it's own. Depending on the environment, when people don't feel like they have an opportunity contribute, it can potentially lead to other issues.
To your point, I think a lack of leadership can kill a consensus-building process. Whoever is coordinating needs the authority and will to end the discussion when the time is right (among other things.) Otherwise, it really can become endless debate and drawn out attempts to get some unwilling party onboard.
It doesn't make sense to me that there should be consensus. People have diverse opinions and values, and these topics are highly situational and subjective rather than neatly, objectively, universally right or wrong.
Don’t they suggest that they don’t want to simply take the majority vote? I’m not really sure whether by consensus you mean the majority opinion or a smaller more shared opinion so maybe I’m misunderstanding.
this is the rather discomforting truth of it - consensus (therefore social change) is achieved through eliminating alternative views, something which can be achieved by the hammer and anvil of relentless repetition of the approved view and de-platforming / silencing of the disapproved view. It is certainly not achieved through some sort honourable battle of ideas
What could you possibly mean by 'no chance for consensus'?
Let me get this straight. One group of people has all the political power in an area. That group of people repressed another group. The second group wants to be treated like human beings.
To me, it seems that if you want to avoid conflict and strife, the first group should immediately give in to those demands. Those demands are just, and the status quo is indefensible, and the first group has the political power to solve the problem, and anyone obstructing the immediate implementation of those demands is the one causing strife.
Since they have a monopoly on power, the onus is on them to make the society they built just, not on the people they are repressing.
I don't think consensus needs to be unanimously affirmative in order to make progress. Even dissent can be a form of consensus, in that everyone in this group acknowledges the proposed course of action, and have formed their positions relative to it.
I understand that 50%+1 is enough to rule, but is there no value in building consensus? Or at least having a civil debate among sensible people?
Obama's presidency suggests that consensus is not as valuable as one might hope, but I've had quite constructive arguments with people from different political backgrounds here in the Netherlands - which did not end with either side being convinced, but did end up with both sides (or at least me) smarter than before.
In many cases, "consensus" is just rubbing salt in the wounds of the losers -- not only do they not get their way, they have to pretend that they agree with the outcome that is decided on. As David Mitchell once said in one of his monologues, the idea of consensus robs people of the ability to say "I told you so!" when the bad idea that the majority favored fails, because with consensus you have to share responsibility with those who favored the idea.
reply