When can I Object?

When can I object? Should I ever object if I want to support my community?

The whole process of reaching consensus is one of resolving objections. Initially, what would be called objections later in the process are called problems or needs or desires. That's why decisions arise — someone objects to the status quo. I object to extension cords being left on the counter in the dining room so I propose they be kept in the drawer underneath.

Objections are not vetoes. There is no big inky brush that you use to make your big sloppy X on the face of a proposal thus relegating it to the ash pile. Objections are good because in resolving them the proposed action is improved to address the needs of all members. This builds a stronger community.

It is important to object when you have information that the other decision-makers may not have (or not want to hear). Your objection might save the group from a frustrating or expensive outcome. It is also important to object if this decision affects your ability to function in the group -– if it will inhibit your participation or make it impossible for you to work toward the aims of the organization.

In sociocracy, there are two criteria for making objections: paramount and reasoned.

"Reasoned" means you must be able explain your objection, with the help of the facilitator or other group members if necessary, so it can be understood. If other group members can't understand it, they can't resolve it. They can't help you.

"Paramount" means "above all others;" literally, above the mountain or the top of the mountain. The effect of this decision will be something that you can't live with, work with, or tolerate.

Concerns & Preferences

In groups using consensus decision-making regularly, anything less than "paramount" is a "concern" or a "preference." There is something you feel might not work out as expected or that you can live with but would prefer another option. Stating concerns and preferences is also important. By voicing them, someone else might realize that it is a concern for them too, or be able to resolve your concern. You will then be able to consent and move forward more energetically. Stating preferences is important because your preferences may not have been considered and perhaps they could be, now or later.

In cohousing, unless you state your concerns, preferences, and objections clearly (and succinctly), you won't be helping to build a community that meets your needs. You will be taking a chance that you will have to leave the group eventually, or live in it unhappily.

The biggest fear in consensus decision-making is people objecting improperly, but I have more concerns about people not objecting when they should. Either because they are afraid of being criticized or wrong, or don't want to take responsibility. Instead they grumble privately and create disharmony, or build up enough resentments to cause them to leave the group.

Is the Personal Paramount?

My response is if you are living in community, how can you expect the personal not to be paramount? You live there 24/7. You have to work out objections. Objecting to a proposal to plant a tree in front of the small north window of your dark kitchen is probably necessary if you are to enjoy your kitchen. Enjoying one's kitchen is personal and in cohousing relevant to tree-planting decisions.

Cohousing communities are designed to collectively address many, though not all personal issues. To automatically exclude the personal from the group's best interests is a road that can kill a community as some members find increasingly that their needs are not met. Though a community cannot be expected to meet all the needs of everyone, the only person who can raise your concerns, preferences, and objections in relation to a group action is you. In doing so, you strengthen the group. Or come to realize you are in the wrong group.