I've always been fond of consensus (in the Quaker sense, more or less) as a form of decision-making in professional and social groups. I believe that, when provided education about the terminology...
I've always been fond of consensus (in the Quaker sense, more or less) as a form of decision-making in professional and social groups. I believe that, when provided education about the terminology and procedure of the consensus process, participants in any given consensus-oriented discussion are capable of engaging in a much more thoughtful discourse than they would otherwise be, in a 50%+1-style decision or similar. In particular, using language like "I feel..." and "I hear..." in a consensus-style meeting has the capacity to change perspectives to a much greater extent than "I'm correct because..." and "That's wrong because..." Because consensus inherently seeks reasonable agreement—not necessarily uniform belief/unanimous agreement on every facet of an issue, but common ground such that the best aspects of various perspectives are considered and integrated into a decision—its products tend to be relatively balanced.
The process still has some structural limitations, namely that it requires a lot of emotional maturity. You do need people who are experienced with the process to facilitate and participate in it, or else speakers are wont to revert to standard exclusionary arguments and the whole thing falls apart. It's difficult to train people to use the empathetic mindset that consensus asks for, though if everyone in the room is working in good faith, it's far from impossible. I'd also note that it takes a lot of personal willpower to block a broadly supported consensus unless you have remarkable strength of mind and character. This is not really any different than standing up to a majority in a typical voting scheme, but given the length of time the consensus can take, discussion facilitators have to be aware of how subtle or not-so-subtle pressures from within a group can negatively influence decisions (think: pushback to avoid a hung jury).
Despite its drawbacks, in this age of inflammatory and counter-productive argumentation, consensus can serve as a valuable tool in collective decision-making between people of different backgrounds, identities, and beliefs. By focusing discussions toward genuinely understanding all of the perspectives in the room, consensus-based policies and agreements can plausibly integrate a wide array of ideas and turn out more suitable to all involved, and therefore more likely to be followed after the fact.
I've always been fond of consensus (in the Quaker sense, more or less) as a form of decision-making in professional and social groups. I believe that, when provided education about the terminology and procedure of the consensus process, participants in any given consensus-oriented discussion are capable of engaging in a much more thoughtful discourse than they would otherwise be, in a 50%+1-style decision or similar. In particular, using language like "I feel..." and "I hear..." in a consensus-style meeting has the capacity to change perspectives to a much greater extent than "I'm correct because..." and "That's wrong because..." Because consensus inherently seeks reasonable agreement—not necessarily uniform belief/unanimous agreement on every facet of an issue, but common ground such that the best aspects of various perspectives are considered and integrated into a decision—its products tend to be relatively balanced.
The process still has some structural limitations, namely that it requires a lot of emotional maturity. You do need people who are experienced with the process to facilitate and participate in it, or else speakers are wont to revert to standard exclusionary arguments and the whole thing falls apart. It's difficult to train people to use the empathetic mindset that consensus asks for, though if everyone in the room is working in good faith, it's far from impossible. I'd also note that it takes a lot of personal willpower to block a broadly supported consensus unless you have remarkable strength of mind and character. This is not really any different than standing up to a majority in a typical voting scheme, but given the length of time the consensus can take, discussion facilitators have to be aware of how subtle or not-so-subtle pressures from within a group can negatively influence decisions (think: pushback to avoid a hung jury).
Despite its drawbacks, in this age of inflammatory and counter-productive argumentation, consensus can serve as a valuable tool in collective decision-making between people of different backgrounds, identities, and beliefs. By focusing discussions toward genuinely understanding all of the perspectives in the room, consensus-based policies and agreements can plausibly integrate a wide array of ideas and turn out more suitable to all involved, and therefore more likely to be followed after the fact.