Consensus

Etymology

Consensus is a Latin word which means “agreement”, “conformity of feelings”. It was lexiconized in the French language at the 19th century under the direction of “broad agreement”. The Latin word dissensus , although it is not lexiconized in French (it does not appear in the dictionaries) is sometimes used to indicate either the failure of a search for consensus, or the attitude which consists in wanting to oppose the various opinions without seeking to bring them closer.

Because of the change of recent direction which turns into to consensus “a simple” vast majority, one comes from there to speak about “absolute consensus” or “perfect consensus” to indicate an agreement which does not collect any opposition.

In addition, the Prononciation of the word is usually faulty: one must say and not.

Consensus and collective thought

Nowadays, one often confuses consensus and “collective choice”. There exist always possible degrees of variation between individuals, and there must be a strong individual implication to make follow the decision making of the action. In which case, decision making requires a negotiation at the end of which the other participants in the debate will be satisfied.

the collective opinion is not a consensus, but a opinion received , an alignment on a Orthodoxie - possibly starting from a mental Manipulation (Gouroutisme) or Propagande. Studies on the effects of groups and the Foule S affirm the existence of the emotional Consensus S which can go until the Collective hysteria.

There exist several debates and research at the same time on the concepts of collective Intelligence and Decision making by consensuses - discussed in other articles. This article treats idea of consensus in its most strict direction, and not of its implications in Politique or economy (fields in which not only the consensus imports but also the subsequent action).

Consensus and dictatorship of the majority

The consensus term also implies concepts of Compromis. Rather than an opinion adopted by a majority, the consensus suggests the contribution of multiple different opinions, and their progressive adaptation until a solution satisfying the greatest number of people can be released. The consensus does not mean inevitably that everyone is satisfied with the result, but suggests rather than everyone can consider the result acceptable and than the majority is satisfied. One must thus take a care particular to the definition of this majority representative of the unit, or else this compromise can move away from reality provided that the consensus is built, within sight of the subjectivity of the estimate of the “representativeness” of each person. This type of consensus, filing the divergences with the profit of the similarities, expresses the accuracy of the widespread opinion. One can consider that the consensus builds with the law of happy medium (taken in the direction of a medium acceptable for the various parts). Some consider whereas the Objectivité, if it is not the Vérité, answers the Normal curve where the 20% remainder are negligible quantity and, so useless to preserve. This type of solution is often called consensus, but is not one strictly speaking.

More generally, one considers decision making by consensus as the search for a solution of resolution, where the compromise must be an original proposal, which takes account of the positions of each one and tries to satisfy all the participants in the debate. This type of compromise is named Gain-gaining. Each proposal must be evaluated for what it is and not for what each one imagines, imagination relating most generally to the transmitter of the proposal.

Some consider that if a compromise gain-gaining cannot be built, one can then record the dissensions (or dissensus ) because they are regarded as closer to reality described and likely to advance the problem. This solution can satisfy the majority of the participants in the debate. Others consider that it is then about a failure of consensus, because each part having remained on its positions, the discussed problem is not really regulated. This said, the research of the consensus makes it possible to prevent that the majority imposes its decisions on the minority, since the veto makes it possible each one to refuse a solution which is not appropriate to him really (with the proviso not of misusing it, in which case it is another shape of dictatorship of the individual on the collective).

Decision making by consensus

There is in many ways, for a group, to make decisions, and none them is perfect. The majority among us were high in a culture which considers that the Western Démocratie is the best, and that the vote is the to only be able which can be used for people. It however appears a great disillusion as for the potentials of this system for a collegial structure in decision making, and even more, with more large scales, to change anything in the system. The democracy becomes the system which makes it possible either to elect a government, or an executive or steering committee, which makes all the decisions, and too often disappoints.

Usually, at the time of a democratic Vote, on any scale, an important minority is dissatisfied with the result. And even if this minority accepts the decision taken, because it the “rules of the game”, it accepts will resist actively or try to attenuate the consequences of this decision until the next poll.

The Compromis is another method to make a decision, usually by the negotiation. Two parts, or more, announce their respective position and change it gradually, by measured concessions. The negotiation can lead to a dissatisfaction of the two parts, because nobody is completely satisfied.

Concurrently to that, the consensus is a means of making a decision which calls upon the creativity of each one. It is a process in which no decision can be taken as long as all the participants do not accept it. Ca can take a long time to set up, because the consensus is the patient product of all the best ideas and wills in a group, in a spirit of cohesion and balance. The minorities are heard during the process, and not only at the end: the decision is collectively elaborate.

Installation of the process

There is to find a consensus in many ways, but we propose this simplified procedure to you, to include/understand the mechanisms.

the problem, or the decision to be taken, is defined and named. This preliminary stage helps to separate the problems to treat personal stakes.
To make fuse all the possible solutions ( Brainstorming ) to solve the problem or to answer the question. To write all, even most insane.
to reserve itself one moment in the process for the various questions and the clarification of the situation.
To discuss and discuss written proposals, to modify them, gather them, and to make of it the list, shortest possible. Which are preferred group? There
to explain Well all the proposals, and their differences so that everyone includes/understands well (one can use the old method which consists in giving a time equal to somebody who is for and somebody who is against the proposal to express itself).
To discuss “for” and “against” each proposal. To make so that each one can be expressed (round table, small groups…).
If there is a major opposition, to start again as in point 6. It is sometimes necessary to start again as in point 4.
If there is no major opposition, to make state of the decision and to see whether there can be an agreement.
To recognize the minor objections and to incorporate small amendments.
To discuss the proposal, and to check the consensus.

Right to veto

The right of Veto , held by each one on a proposal of the remainder of the group, is the angular stone of the method of the consensus. The “permission” of each member of the group is essential to make a decision, this is why to listen and answer all the participants and to take into account all the opinions become the concern of the group as a whole.

With the result that the result is not only one group more levelling, but also a “satisfied” group more, in which each member has a chance to feel important within the group. The responsibilities are shared better, the members are more receptive with the others, and envies it to make things together is divided. The veto on a proposal which required long discussions and a difficult synthesis is a serious act. It can be made while having weighed well for and against, like an ultimate recourse, on ethical bases, or because of the consequences which a decision can have. It can also be made because of a strong emotion (fear, dislike), but in no case because of personal preferences or impulses egocentric people.

When decision making made its way, take into account of the various opinions, changing, and that somebody is always in dissension with the found solution, there are other forms that the veto to be considered, which do not counter the process. For example, not to support a decision: “I do not feel the need for that, but I can nevertheless take part”. Or to remain reserved: “I think that can be an error, but I can assume it”. Or not to imply itself: “I would not take part, but I would not prevent the others from doing it”.

In certain descriptions of the process of decision making per consensus, the concept exists that somebody who feels the need to make a veto on a proposal should plan to withdraw group, at least for a time. However, this idea tends contrary extreme to the goal of the method: rather than to encourage the inclusion of the opinions and the wishes of all, those and those which have an opinion minority are likely to feel obliged to be excluded from the group. The possibility of an exclusion of the group is, for certain, a completely opposite mechanism with the principle of inclusivity of the method of consensus, tending to to exclude those and those who are non conformist, rather than to encourage criticisms towards the majority opinion.

Decision makings by many virtual communities often follow this type of approach.

The articles which follow give the Méthode of the Consensus . As much to say immediately that they run the counter to any idea of collective opinion or of compromised .

on the importance of the dissensus in decision making by consensus: the Canadian Council of the ministers of environment
the consensus makes cohabit the differences, it does not aim at eliminating them: Method of the Consensus
On the aspect consensus-dictatorship

collective Intelligence, cognitive Intelligence,
Dissensus,
Doctrinaire approach, Bien-pensance, Orthodoxy, Thought of group,
social Psychology, Imitation, mental Handling.
Systems of decision making
Decision absurdity
Sociocratie

External bonds

Source of this article
On Eco Footbridge a series of articles and cards practical on this subject
Method of decision making per consensus of Canadian Council off Ministers off the Environment
absurd decisions

Random links: