A completely different way to make decisions 

From Rupert Ross, Dancing With a Ghost, Markham, ON, Octopus Publishing Group, 1992

Ross describes consensus decision making at meetings of Cree natives in northern Ontario.

“The chairman will never say, ‘Gentlemen, give me your recommendations,’ and none of the others will say ‘I think we should do this and here are my reasons.’ Instead, everyone takes turns making speeches which recite facts but appear to contain no opinions. One speech follows another, with none of the frequent give and take that constitutes a discussion for us. The speeches seem to go in circles, with many things being repeated by each speaker, often more than once. No one seems to venture a recommendation or state a point of view. In fact, meetings often seem to end this way, with no apparent conclusions having been reached at all.

“The strange thing is that the participants usually agree that a conclusion has been reached. I suspect that this comes about through a process of ‘distillation’ whereby the repetition of certain significant facts in the various speeches leads to a point where there is general agreement on which facts are most significant and only one conclusion seems reasonable. It is as if a common agreement on the pertinent facts which drive a particular conclusion is all that’s necessary. The conclusion itself need not even be articulated; everyone goes away knowing what it is.” (Page 22)

Many of our structured deliberations in European/white culture, whether in legislatures or organizations’ meetings, have similar underlying processes going on – but we would never admit it, because it’s too unpredictable. Most of us are, in any case, more interested in controlling the outcome than in having a meaningful dialogue during which everyone learns and grows.

“Dialogue means we sit and talk with each other, especially those with whom we may think we have the greatest differences. However, talking together all too often means debating, discussing with a view to convincing the other, arguing for our point of view, examining pro’s and con’s. In dialogue, the intention is not to advocate but to inquire; not to argue but to explore; not to convince but to discover.”
Louise Diamond, Ph.D.
The Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy

On a related note, a French nun, who had come to Quebec in the 17th century to teach native girls sewing, housekeeping, and of course the bible, saw very quickly that conversion to the Catholic faith was out of the question for these people. “They are far too democratic,” she wrote in her diary.

Comments