Consensus

A consensus is the point-of-agreement in judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole. It’s also a specific method used to get diverse groups to come to that point of agreement, a point that is often very hard to reach when two opposing viewpoints are involved.

Consensus is therefore something that is employed when there needs to be a meeting of the minds. It's a process used much the way that Robert’s Pocket Manual of Rules of Order for Deliberative Assemblies is used, only coming to consensus in a meeting is not about a democratic majority making a decision or determination, it is about getting everyone, even those with different viewpoints to agree. Everyone in a consensus group must come to a point where they agree (or at least compromise) for the sake of coming to a group decision.

The widespread use of this meeting method is attributable to the influences of three primary well-known German philosophers, Immanuel Kant, (1724-1804) Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, (1770-1831) and Karl Marx, (1818-1833) and the process used to make a consensus happen in a group is called the Hegelian Dialectic. It is named after George Hegel himself.

Helgels dialectic ideas came from other philosophers like Socrates and Plato. These great thinkers made persuasive argument a bit of an art form in their day, but Hegel took the processes of argument and dialog even further and made it religious, believing that the use of his specific process to mitigate the law of opposites would ultimately lead to man’s discovery of himself as God.

Hegel’s concepts were appealing to Communist revolutionaries like Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who like Hegel, believed the dialectical system of creating opposing ideas and getting people to come to a consensus... if applied to civilizations -- would eventually produce a stateless utopia. They were ready to transform the world.

Consensus applied to anything, produces change, and by application of the dialectic in it’s various forms, people’s thinking can be easily swayed from their beliefs that cause conflict within a group. Minds can change.

Here is an example: First you take an intellectual idea, something that people have opposing view point about, ( Is Jesus God or not God?)

You select a thesis for argument by taking a look at the positive, and all the reasons anyone would believe such a thing…(i.e. Jesus is God! ) Then you negate the ideas with a totally opposing and contrary idea, an antithesis. (Jesus is not God!)

The two opposing viewpoints are in conflict and now, you need some resolution on the matter.

To get resolution, you need to get people who hold these opposing viewpoints to compromise. To compromise they need to discuss the matter and agree to be tolerant of those things that they do not understand. You get people talking and if you have a particular outcome you are interested in achieving, you insert a trained facilitator, or transformational leader to help keep the conversation going and move it in a particular direction discussing those things that need to be compromised on.

This person, specially trained of course, takes straw polls, highlights the various benefits to the differing ideas, generates some feedback from everyone to make everyone part of the group and then they bring everyone to the point of consensus by purposefully isolating and mitigating those who resist change and there are Hegelian techniques for this as well. If you are sucessful , you get people to agree with something completely different than either extremity of the argument, called a synthesis, something on which both parties can agree without conflict, (Jesus was a great spiritual teacher!)

Now the two groups are no longer divided in conflict on the Jesus issue and can say in unity, “Jesus was a great spiritual teacher.” Now anyone then who does not agree completely with the “new and improved” statement of the groups new collective reality (just created by the entirety of the group) is considered a dangerous thinker, a threat to the peace and safety of all.

It is almost as if those in the group can believe two opposing ideas simultaneously and Hegel himself is a fine example of this.

George Hegel believed in “God,” but to Hegel, God was defined not as the God of the Bible. To Hegel, God was better described as something he called “the Absolute Mind,” and he believed that man was, “God in process.” His religious views were strange enough that he could both be considered an atheist and thought of as someone who had great spiritual insight at the same time. You might say he was a "religious atheist," and this because he believed in God, but he disn't believe in God... he was an atheist who believed in evolution, not in God nor in anything as pedantic as religion, but he believed that man, was evolving... into "God."

In his book, Phenomenology of Mind, Hegel described “God” this way: “Of the Absolute it must be said that it is essentially a result, that only at the end is it what it is in very truth; and just in that consists its nature, which is to be actual, subject, or self-becoming, self-development." This, loosely interpreted, is his spiritual insight (in religious application) into his belief that man was evolving to become God. It was his hope that through such a complex blending of religion and humanism a universal understanding about God and man would emerge and he was not alone. Many communistic world leaders in Hegel’s day, hoped this charming little gem could assist in developing that “perfect” state of mind, the perfect state... where religion meets government and everyone could finally work for the common good and have everything in common.

There are many trained political scientists and philosophers today who know how to get people to dialog and what topics to get them dialogging about in order to effect change of mind. They know people will be willing to make concessions, or even change their minds in exchange for the ability to gain something they want or need and that it's unlikely that someone would jeopardize being isolated from the thinking of the rest of the group. If anyone would dare to be different or refused to concede to the new idea presented, they would apply techniques to mitigate their arguements and bring them into a more tolerant position.

There is no room however for sovereignty in group think.

Many non-conformists are labeled as crazy, sometimes even criminally insane, after all they have endangered the health of the group by causing conflict. They are not team players, or have asked too many questions because they dare to think... or simply think outside the social norms.
They are resistors. They are “antagonistic,” “self-centered” and "intolerant" of others, and the punishment or consequences of not conforming can often be quite severe.

Anyone who would therefore choose not to conform to the status quo or make a decision not to move in the direction of the crowd, must be willing to do that which they believe whatever the cost may be. They must be absolutely sure they stand on a firm foundation, and be prepared to face strong opposition.

Critics of consensus use in public settings site examples of how such procedures easily become a psychologically manipulative method of force. They cite examples of how such methods can even be used covertly with the intent of conforming unsuspecting people to a predetermined outcome in a clandestine manner, by those who would do so as "plants" to further an undisclosed cause, or as spies.

Fairness is an issue too. The least accommodating people get all the attention and focus of the group, sometimes even are rewarded somehow in the process of mitigation, meanwhile the most accommodating loose time and go virtually unnoticed. Additionally, bad decisions can be made when a course of action is taken simply because people are willing to compromise, not believing in their decision, but believing that it's best to get on board with the decision (right or wrong) of the group.

the process has some shortcomings, and yet, the process of consensus is currently seen as essential element to a global democracy and it‘s a process being used everywhere in all sorts of arenas. It's used in businesses, in schools, and in religious circles of every kind, and it’s slowly changing the way we humans think.

Consensus has been really effective in something called Total Quality Management (TQM) also known as Change Management and for years it has been implemented in training leaders, particularly leaders who want to effectively manage change. Individuals who are trained in using these consensus methods are routinely hired by businesses, governments, educators and service industries to help them grow and “change,” and they are welcomed because they promise to deliver positive outcomes everyone can live with and assure companies of diverse customer satisfaction in the end.

Whether it is in developing teams, group think, team thinking, or the establishing of business partnerships both locally and all around the globe, the job of these change agents is to help people get along and agree on things and feel good about the change that comes as a result of the dialog process they have been a part of. The end result is a great partnership. There are no conflicts and no disagreements,and if there were, then they were simply mitigated.

Now, being right or wrong is not an issue. The group has been in dialogue about this for a long time and have come to consensus. No one even wants facts to prove what is right or what is wrong because to do so would only bring about that nasty, undesirable thing called conflict. Everyone in the group has come to the same conclusion and all that matters is that we all agree.