Dan's Interpretation of Parsha Beha'alotecha (Numbers 8-12)

Shalom Chaverim! I am writing this from a hotel in the Italian city of Sorento with the little free time that I made for myself this vacation. Sorry if these thoughts are a little scattered, because I’m pretty scattered right now. I have read this week’s parsha, Beha’alotecha, many times in my life, the first time being for my Bar Mitzvah many years ago. Until I read it again this week, though, I had not grasped the importance or the context of the parsha. It could be that is because I am reading the Torah in order, or maybe because of the teaching that a specific parsha is meant to be read and interpreted during it’s assigned week. Either way, trying to read along in the Torah each week has been a very meaningful experience for me this year.

When I was reading Beha’alotecha this week, I saw two ideas come up again and again: trust and responsibility. This parsha is where the Israelites start their long journey in the wilderness, from Sinai to the land of Israel. After seeing the miracles of G-d, accepting the Covenant, and learning all the rules that that entails, the Israelites set off into the unknown. They are led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night. When the cloud/fire moves, the people move, and when the cloud/fire stays still, the people set up camp. The Israelites had to trust that G-d was leading them in the right direction, that G-d would give them enough time to rest when it was needed, and that the cloud/fire would stop at places that could meet their essential needs. And with the blast of the shofar and the gathering of the community, the trust continued and the journey began.

In the beginning of their travels, Moses speaks to Hobab, who is the son of Moses’ father-in-law and a Midianite. Moses tells him that he is needed because he has experience traveling and camping out in the wilderness. Hobab responds saying that he does not want to go on traveling with the Israelites and that he would rather go back to his birthplace. Moses responds by telling Hobab that the Israelites need him and that Moses will make sure that the people will “do good for you in proportion to the good that YHWH will do for us” (Num. 10:32). This shows the trust that Moses has for the community of Israel that they could bring about the same good for Hobab that G-d could give to them. In addition, Hobab’s decision to continue traveling with the Israelites shows both his trust in the Hebrew G-d and trust in Moses and the community that they would truly accept a stranger in their midst and share their blessing with him. 

Along the journey, their are many who start to grumble and complain. The first instance of this occurs in Numbers 11:1-3 where it says that G-d got angry at the grumblers and consumed them in fire. The next verses go into detail about a second instance of grueling amongst the Israelites. This time, the Israelites complain that they only have G-d’s manna to eat and not any meat. They remember the fish they “would eat in Egypt for free,” and say that their “soul is dried up,” because they miss the food that they left after trusting in G-d (Num. 11:5-6). In the end, G-d sends a huge flock of quail to where they were traveling and when the grumblers sunk their teeth into the quail, G-d struck them and killed them. The Israelites didn’t trust G-d or Moses after all that they had done up to that point. Even though these people committed themselves to the Covenant, they still envied their past life in Egypt, as slaves. It is hard to trust and go along with something when you perceive the short-term as harder and less comfortable as your past. I think what the Torah is trying to say here is that if you should never give up on trying to work for long-term goals to make the world better or achieve fulfillment, and if you do, there are going to be consequences. They probably won’t be as bad as the one’s depicted here, but I think the outcome will be the same, you won’t get to where you are headed and you won’t be able to shape your future or the future of your people.

In the story of the grumblers, there is also a lot to say about responsibility. When the grumblers complain to Moses, he gets angry at G-d. Moses tells G-d that he feels that he is alone in his task of leading the Israelites and that it is too much of a burden for him. He feels as if both G-d and the people are leaving him with sole responsibility of the community and aren’t helping with the heavy load. Moses goes so far as to command G-d to kill him if things don’t change. After hearing this, G-d tells Moses that he should gather seventy of Israel’s elders and that G-d will share Moses’ spirit and responsibility over the people with them. Later on, Moses gathered the seventy elders outside of the camp and G-d did as he promised and Moses and the elders prophesied and shared the burden. It turns out that two people (Eldad and Medad) that were in the camp also prophesied. When Joshua heard this, he told Moses to restrain them because they were taking on responsibility that wasn’t designated to them. Moses responded saying that he wished that “all of YHWH’s people were prophets, that YHWH would put his spirit on them” (Num. 11:29). In Joshua’s view, there is a clear hierarchy and leadership is restricted to those who are chosen. On the other hand, Moses believes that everybody should be a leader and that stepping up and people taking responsibility, even if they weren’t told to take it, is the way an ideal world would look. 

Going a step further, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch says, in his commentary on Numbers, that “Moses' answer to Joshua remains for all teachers and leaders as the brilliant example they should keep before their eyes as the highest ideal aim of their work… to make themselves superfluous, that the people of all classes and ranks reach such a spiritual level that they no longer require teachers and leaders.” This relates to Habonim’s goal of engaging in revolutionary service and our endgoal for the the social order we are trying to create. The reality is that if the world was a anarcho-socialist world that believed in youth and identity empowerment, we wouldn’t really need Habonim. And that isn’t something to be sad about. I really hope that I see the day where we don’t need Habonim, but for now we must take responsibility to educate and build the society we want to live in. And we must do this both through Habonim and other avenues, and always realize that in whatever work we do, the goal should be making what we do irrelevant. Because if that is not the goal, you won’t be able to make any significant changes in the world around you. 

Machane will be starting soon for us all, and it is a very exciting time. We are all embarking together on a journey into the unknown. Throughout the summer we need to remember the importance of trust. We need to trust that everyone is trying to make the summer great for everyone. We need to trust that mazkirut is going to help and engage the tzevet throughout the summer. We need to trust that our tzvatim ktanim will be looking out for each other and sharing responsibilities. We also need to make sure that everybody is welcome on tzevet and at Machane, no matter how long they’ve been in the movement or what beliefs they hold (within reason haha). We must encourage people to look within themselves and help them on the path towards hagshama atzmit and hagshama tnuatit. We must realize that the present is not enough and the past only looks golden. That the future we envision and are building together is worthwhile and not something to give up on. The mission of educating youth is essential to this process and not worth giving up either. The essential thing is that everyone is a leader and everyone should be afforded responsibility: from Amelim to mazkirut. Because in the end, we are all filled with a divine spirit and an urge to change the world. Shabbat Shalom.

Interesting passage about political correctness, social justice etc

The legacy of identity politics has produced a problematic language idealism where we focus more on correct words and phrases rather than the material basis of oppression… And even in the moment where we imagine we are indeed combatting real world oppression we are, in fact, simply engaging with the level of appearance.  We often fail to recognize that those who lack the privileged education to understand the correct terminology and turns of phrase are not necessarily those who are chauvinist, just as we fail to recognize that those who possess the education to hide their chauvinism with the correct language are indeed the enemy.  This language idealism becomes nothing but a self-righteous exercise when it refuses to contemplate a praxis of mass pedagogy based on actually changing the material circumstances and instead focuses on anti-oppression training, atomized concepts of privilege, and how to speak correctly.  It becomes utterly rarified and intentionally ignorant when it demands that we waste our time examining every word and turn of phrase at the expense of changing the material circumstances upon which this language is dependent.  Moralism abounds.

[sent to me by a friend, I believe it's from: http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2013/04/10-theses-on-identity-politics.html]

My Reflections on Yom HaZikaron

What is Yom HaZikaron? Is it a day of mourning? Is it a day to honor people's memories and people's service? Is it a day evaluate the immense presence of the military in the state? Is it a day to criticize Israel for not making peace? Is it a day to criticize others for not making peace? Is it a day to recall the victimization of Jews throughout history? Is it a day to reaffirm our need for the IDF?

I don't have answers to these questions. My own feelings are that everyday is a day to play the blame game on who didn't agree to make peace. Today, in my opinion, is not that day. Saying that Yom HaZikaron is for that purpose I think takes away from the incredibly personal aspects of the day. It is the day to remember the specific people that have been killed. who have been affected by war, by terrorism.

I think that one of the reasons people in the states feel less inclined to observe Yom HaZikaron--aside from the fact that many people don't know anyone in the IDF or anyone that has been killed--is that the holiday is tied to the military. It is a day to commend Israel's soldiers for their service. This can be uncomfortable, but I think that it is completely necessary. First, it is imperative, in my opinion, to remember that the IDF is composed of individuals, and I don't think that honoring them should be dismissed in the name of feeling uncomfortable with particular actions that the IDF takes. And second, I firmly believe that at this moment in history, the service of Israeli soldiers is crucial to Israel's existence. To avoid acknowledging this is a shame to say the least.

I also think it is a day to think of peace. To hope for a day when the purpose of the IDF will be different. Primarily, though, the purpose of Yom HaZikaron is exactly what its full title means: The Day of Remembrance for the Fallen Soldiers of Israel and Victims of Terrorism.

We should give them this day.

A Moving Prayer For Minimum Wage

The March for Minimum Wage was a very surreal happening. My journey started as a last minute decision in Amherst, Massachusetts and it materialized a couple days later on the streets of Philadelphia.  It was a Friday during Pesach and everything seemed larger than reality. There were the various teach-ins at Rittenhouse Square where chanichim, ma’apilim, and people from outside the movement sat together and talked to each other about different issues. The topics of the conversations ranged from the about different aspects of minimum wage to questions about how faith plays a part in our activism. While that was going on, people commemorated Good Friday around the square, recreating the stations of the cross, which added an additional sense of seriousness and holiness to the conversations we were having and the struggles we were talking about. It seemed like everyone was gathering at the square: religious people, workers, organizers, politicians, students, professors, community members, and members of Habonim Dror. We were all looking for our own way to interact and engage with the struggles of workers, and at the same time we were all collectively actualizing a value that we all hold dear: social justice. Some of us were workers, living on an impossible minimum wage, and some of us were people who wanted to stand in solidarity with them, understanding that our values don’t mesh with the current reality we live in. And at the teach-in, the march, and the rally, we were all standing together, meeting each other, sharing our stories, and hearing each and every voice, something that I rarely see anymore. To me, there was a sense that we were not only there to engage in social justice, but also to pray, with our voices and our feet, for a better world.

There are a couple of images from the march that really impressed themselves in my mind. One was watching two chanichim explain minimum wage and what the rally was about to a young child. It was inspiring to see youth that the movement has educated understand and feel connected to workers’ rights, so much so that they wanted to actively share that passion with others. Another occurred during the march from Rittenhouse Square to Independence Mall, where I marched with chanichim I have worked on and off with since Madatz on one side and my mother on the other, shouting chants and holding up posters that showed our support for raising the minimum wage. As we walked down the streets of Philadelphia, singing songs of freedom and wage increase, being filmed and waved at from every angle by onlookers on the street, and being joined by different people who were struck by our message, I felt, for the first time in a long time, what it means to be a part of a movement, what it means to stand for something and then take action towards it. And people in chultzot were leading the way. One thing that ran through my head the whole time was that, for a powerful moment, it seemed like Habonim Dror had reclaimed its place as the vanguard of social activism, a place it has not been for a while.

Dan's Interpretation of Parsha Kedoshim (Leviticus 19-20)

Shabbat Shalom everyone! I feel compelled to relate some Torah to you even though we are in the midst of Shabbos Koydesh. It was my last Shabbat with the JSU at Hampshire and it was a very moving experience, having to say goodbye to the community that sustained me this year, and realize that I would be leaving the community and the traditions we built together in order to live in a movement context next year. It was bittersweet. I will miss the community I am leaving and the weekly Shabbat Services we led and the weekly Torah study sessions we engaged in. I am already hoping that Anya and Zaq will agree to come with me and visit Hampshire next year on a Shabbes eve. Enough sentiment, now for Torah (although the Torah teaches us that everything is interconnected!)!

This week’s parsha is Parshat Kedoshim, or holies. It continues on the track of setting out the regulations of a holy life. It starts out with the declaration that we are holy because G-d is holy, which is a powerful statement that recalls Genesis, where it says that we are all made in the image of G-d. It goes on to list different things: restatements of some of the Ten Commandments, agricultural laws (these are cool and are the basis for the idea of tzedaka!), ethical and moral law, and religious laws. The sort of mixed bag of laws symbolizes that, in life, all of these things are connected. Everything that you do is interconnected. Religiosity, morality, and normalcy are all bound together and should guide all your actions. That is why it is taught that if you let religion influence your thought and actions, then everything you do is religious, and the sam with morality, and normalcy. 

This parsha is famous for an oft repeated phrase, “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev. 19:18). Usually when it is said, it is said after somebody does something bad, and you ask them how would you feel if somebody did that to you. While this is a good question, and a good way of evoking empathy, I don’t think that is what the Torah is commanding us. That question and the way this phrase is normally evoked is the height of relativism. It is according to the individual. In the Torah, however, loving your neighbor isn’t some relativistic notion. It actually gives us guidelines. These come right before the phrase, in Leviticus 19:17 and 19:18. The first thing to do to love your neighbor is to “not hate” (Lev. 19:17). Pretty self explanatory. The next guideline is that “you shall criticize your fellow” (Lev. 19:17). Then it says that you shouldn’t seek revenge or hold grudges. This isn’t some relativistic thing, it is a commandment, and a commandment we should all strive to take seriously.

The reason I bring this up is because I feel like this notion of loving that is demanded of us in Leviticus 19:17-18 is the same way we talk about love in Habonim and in kvutza. When I saw that G-d tells us that in order to love, you must criticize, I was filled with happiness. This is where Martin Buber gets the idea of I-Thou relationships! I never knew that such a powerful concept was actually a commandment defined in the Torah! I feel like we should all strive to find the beauty of the Torah, and not be content with only what people tell you is in it. It is the root of the ideologies we hold dear and we should come to know where our treasured ideas come from. And lastly, I want to challenge all of us to have an I-Thou relationship with the Torah, reading it, accepting it, and demanding from it, and reaching together into the unknown of our souls. Shabbat Shalom.

Seder/Economic Justice

Forgot to post this before seder but here it is for years to come....I found this and brought it to the Mercaz call last week. It's an interpretation of the Bread of Affliction (HaLachma Anya [ANYA!!!!]) text at the beginning of the Magid section of the Hagada. Original text then interpretation:

Ha Lachma Anya

This is the bread of affliction, the poor bread,

which our ancestors ate in the land of Egypt.

Let all who are hungry come and eat.

Let all who are in want, share the hope of Passover.

As we celebrate here, we join with our people everywhere.

This year we celebrate here.

Next year in the land of Israel.

Now we are still in bonds.

Next year may we all be free.

Affliction Beyond Hunger

by Jews for Racial and Economic Justice

In our city today, some of our neighbors are forced to work in order to receive their meager welfare benefits, which barely enable them to survive. Tonight we share their bread of affliction:

• The affliction of work without dignity
• The injustice of no minimum wage
• The theft of protection from injury
• The anxiety of work with no future
• Panic at the threat of lost benefits.
• The stress of leaving a child for work
• The shame of forced placement
• The death of educational opportunity
• The robbery of the right to organize
• Silenced voices of protest.

Who speaks aloud alongside those whose speech has been muted?

Who breathes together with those who cannot catch their breath?

We can breathe the breath of life, we can join these struggles, we can face the Pharoahs and strip them of their power.

Dan's Interpretation of Parsha Acharei Mot (Leviticus 16-18)

This week’s parsha, Acharei Mot, is probably the one that I have read and thought about the most since I got into reading the Torah at the beginning of this semester. An excerpt was even one of the texts that I brought for the chevruta thing we did during the kvutza seminar. I think this parsha has a lot to do with the ideology Habonim holds as a movement, even though it might not look like that at first glance. 

The content of Acharei Mot is made up of of three sections: 1.) The instructions of how to commemorate Yom Kippur (Lev. 16) 2.) The rules of slaughtering animals (Lev. 17) and 3.) The laws of prohibited sexual acts (Lev. 18). In this interpretation I will be focusing on the first and the third section. 

The fist thing that I want to look at are the instructions for Yom Kippur observance that G-d gives Moses to tell Aaron regarding goats (and not just because I love goats!). Part of the ritual for commemorating Yom Kippur involves Aaron taking two pure goats, and drawing lots to determine which one will be sacrificed for G-d and which one should be sent to Azazel (believed to be some sort of demon that dwells in the the desert, but no one knows for sure because this is the only time it ever shows up). Aaron is supposed to kill the one that was designated for G-d as the second goat is “standing alive before the LORD” (Lev. 16:10). The part of this ritual that I find most interesting is what Aaron is to do with the goat for Azazel. He is commanded to place both of his hands on the goat’s head and confess and tell it all of the “iniquities and transgressions” that the Israelites’ had committed so that all of those sins will be transferred onto the goat’s head (Lev. 16:21). The goat was then sent into the wilderness along with all the Israelites’ sins. 

I think this practice means several things. One, is that it means that everybody needs to take responsibility for and recognize the sins that they have committed. Two, it means that the community should be open enough about their sins so that one person can tell all of them to this goat. Three, it emphasizes the need to get beyond the sins and actions of our past, to have their memory be available, but their remnants gone to the wilderness. I think these things are very important to take into account when dealing with communities, whether our school communities, our kvutza community, or our machane community. We need to be able to take responsibility for the actions we take, be open about them, especially to the people they affect, and then move beyond them together. I think it is really cool and somewhat beautiful that in Judaism we have a specific time to remember to do this, specifically Yom Kippur.

The second part I would like to look at is the section containing the sexual laws. This section is filled with gems like “Do not commit incest with your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter, since this is a sexual crime against yourself,” (Lev. 18:10) and the infamous “Do not lie with a male as you would with a woman, since this is a disgusting perversion” (Lev. 18:22). And then it talks about the land of Israel vomiting the Jewish people out of the land if they commit these acts. Pretty harsh. But where I find the meaning, context, and power of this section is at the beginning and the end. At the beginning, it says “Do not follow the ways of Egypt where you once lived, nor of Canaan, where I am bringing you,” (Lev. 18:3) and at the end it says “Do not let yourselves be defiled by any of these acts. It was as a result of them that the nations that I am driving away before you became defiled” (Lev. 18:24)

To me, when I hear these lines, the first thing that pops into my head is our friend A.D. Gordon! Remember when he said we shouldn’t use others’ milk to make our butter? That is essentially what I feel like the Torah is saying here: In order to be a distinct people, you need to create your own culture. If the people of Israel keep on doing everything that the other nations did, what would make them distinct? How can we have responsibility if we don’t choose to act differently than the culture we want to separate from. While I recognize that the specific laws that are specified here are not the most constructive or tolerant as we would like them to be, I think it is important to look past the content and see the intention behind what G-d is saying to the Jewish people: you need to create your own culture.

Shabbat Shalom!

Lior's Art on Sarah and Hagar

Hey kvutzee,

This is my finished (for now) piece on Sarai (Sarah) and Hagar!  Basically it's from Breishit 16 and 17.  In 16 Sarai realizes she's not gonna get pregnant, and tells Abraham to get her slave Hagar pregnant instead.  He does, and once Hagar is pregnant she begins to despise Sarai and disrespect her.  Sarai blames Abraham, so he tells her he can do whatever she wants with her slave—so Sarai mistreats (beats?) Hagar.  Hagar runs away, but is stopped by an angel of the lord and is told the son she is pregnant with will be Ishmael and will be very important.  

In 17, the only important part for my piece is that Abraham makes the covenant with God.  He tells Abraham that Sarai will be called Sarah, and will become pregnant even though she's so old!  The kid will be Isaac, and his people will keep the covenant.

Ok, now on to my interpretation.  Part of it is just a drawing of the story, I drew as I read.  Sarai is in red and has a barren womb.  Hagar in purple bows down to her, with a full, bright womb, and further to the right (and towards the back) you can see her as she runs away.  Between the two women are black marks of hate and a black line to divide.  Over the little Hagar in the back, where she ran away, is the light descending from her interaction with God.  In the lower left corner like two linked rings is the covenant between Abraham and God, also in black.

After I read, I felt the story was so incomplete.  Many beautiful things happen here:  Hagar sees the value in her child through her meeting with an angel, Abraham makes a covenant with God that is central to Judaism.  But in the meantime, there's a whole lot of woman on woman hate and violence.  Sarai has Hagar as her slave, her lower.  Hagar doesn't respect Sarai based on her infertility, an insult to her womanhood and value stemming from something she has no control over.  In response, Sarai is violent towards Hagar.  

And here's the worst part:  there's no resolution.  All this division within women, violence and hurt, is given no time to be fixed.  And so we see the descendants of that violence today.  The children of Sarah and Hagar (essentially Jews and Muslims, respectively) still fight one another, and others.  Women of different classes and races and religions and more are divided and cause harm to one another!  It pained me to read about the beginning of violence between women, who needed to unite, and to be left with no conclusion.

So in the bottom right corner, in the circle of yellow light of Godly interactions, two women (with red and purple) stand together.  Their wombs intersecting form another covenant of sorts, one that demonstrates solidarity between all the women of the world.  Until we fight for unity in the face of oppression, this division has not been resolved.  Until we women unite, we cannot all be fertile—in every sense of the word.

Laila Tov,

Lioroosh

My So-Called Opinions by Zachary Fine

Critics of the millennial generation, of which I am a member, consistently use terms like “apathetic,” “lazy” and “narcissistic” to explain our tendency to be less civically and politically engaged. But what these critics seem to be missing is that many millennials are plagued not so much by apathy as by indecision. And it’s not surprising: Pluralism has been a large influence on our upbringing. While we applaud pluralism’s benefits, widespread enthusiasm has overwhelmed desperately needed criticism of its side effects.

By “pluralism,” I mean a cultural recognition of difference: individuals of varying race, gender, religious affiliation, politics and sexual preference, all exalted as equal. In recent decades, pluralism has come to be an ethical injunction, one that calls for people to peacefully accept and embrace, not simply tolerate, differences among individuals. Distinct from the free-for-all of relativism, pluralism encourages us (in concept) to support our own convictions while also upholding an “energetic engagement with diversity, ” as Harvard’s Pluralism Project suggested in 1991. Today, paeans to pluralism continue to sound throughout the halls of American universities, private institutions, left-leaning households and influential political circles.

Those of us born after the mid-1980s grew up amid a new orthodoxy of multiculturalist ethics and ‘political correctness.’

However, pluralism has had unforeseen consequences. The art critic Craig Owens once wrote that pluralism is not a “recognition, but a reduction of difference to absolute indifference, equivalence, interchangeability.” Some millennials who were greeted by pluralism in this battered state are still feelings its effects. Unlike those adults who encountered pluralism with their beliefs close at hand, we entered the world when truth-claims and qualitative judgments were already on trial and seemingly interchangeable. As a result, we continue to struggle when it comes to decisively avowing our most basic convictions.

Those of us born after the mid-1980s whose upbringing included a liberal arts education and the fruits of a fledgling World Wide Web have grown up (and are still growing up) with an endlessly accessible stream of texts, images and sounds from far-reaching times and places, much of which were unavailable to humans for all of history. Our most formative years include not just the birth of the Internet and the ensuing accelerated global exchange of information, but a new orthodoxy of multiculturalist ethics and “political correctness.”

These ideas were reinforced in many humanities departments in Western universities during the 1980s, where facts and claims to objectivity were eagerly jettisoned. Even “the canon” was dislodged from its historically privileged perch, and since then, many liberal-minded professors have avoided opining about “good” literature or “high art” to avoid reinstating an old hegemony. In college today, we continue to learn about the byproducts of absolute truths and intractable forms of ideology, which historically seem inextricably linked to bigotry and prejudice.

For instance, a student in one of my English classes was chastened for his preference for Shakespeare over that of the Haitian-American writer Edwidge Danticat. The professor challenged the student to apply a more “disinterested” analysis to his reading so as to avoid entangling himself in a misinformed gesture of “postcolonial oppression.” That student stopped raising his hand in class.

I am not trying to tackle the challenge as a whole or indict contemporary pedagogies, but I have to ask: How does the ethos of pluralism inside universities impinge on each student’s ability to make qualitative judgments outside of the classroom, in spaces of work, play, politics or even love?

II.

In 2004, the French sociologist of science Bruno Latour intimated that the skeptical attitude which rebuffs claims to absolute knowledge might have had a deleterious effect on the younger generation: “Good American kids are learning the hard way that facts are made up, that there is no such thing as natural, unmediated, unbiased access to truth, that we are always prisoners of language, that we always speak from a particular standpoint, and so on.” Latour identified a condition that resonates: Our tenuous claims to truth have not simply been learned in university classrooms or in reading theoretical texts but reinforced by the decentralized authority of the Internet. While trying to form our fundamental convictions in this dizzying digital and intellectual global landscape, some of us are finding it increasingly difficult to embrace qualitative judgments.

Matters of taste in music, art and fashion can be a source of anxiety and hesitation.

Matters of taste in music, art and fashion, for example, can become a source of anxiety and hesitation. While clickable ways of “liking” abound on the Internet, personalized avowals of taste often seem treacherous today. Admittedly, many millennials (and nonmillennials) might feel comfortable simply saying, “I like what I like,” but some of us find ourselves reeling in the face of choice. To affirm a preference for rap over classical music, for instance, implicates the well-meaning millennial in a web of judgments far beyond his control. For the millennial generation, as a result, confident expressions of taste have become more challenging, as aesthetic preference is subjected to relentless scrutiny.

Philosophers and social theorists have long weighed in on this issue of taste. Pierre Bourdieu claimed that an “encounter with a work of art is not ‘love at first sight’ as is generally supposed.” Rather, he thought “tastes” function as “markers of ‘class.’ ” Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer argued that aesthetic preference could be traced along socioeconomic lines and reinforce class divisions. To dislike cauliflower is one thing. But elevating the work of one writer or artist over another has become contested territory.

This assured expression of “I like what I like,” when strained through pluralist-inspired critical inquiry, deteriorates: “I like what I like” becomes “But why do I like what I like? Should I like what I like? Do I like it because someone else wants me to like it? If so, who profits and who suffers from my liking what I like?” and finally, “I am not sure I like what I like anymore.” For a number of us millennials, commitment to even seemingly simple aesthetic judgments have become shot through with indecision.

It seems especially odd because in our “postcritical” age, as the critic Hal Foster termed it, a diffusion of critical authority has elevated voices across a multitude of Internet platforms. With Facebook, Twitter and the blogosphere, everyone can be a critic. But for all the strident young voices heard across social media, there are so many more of us who abstain from being openly critical: Every judgment or critique has its weakness, making criticism seem dangerous at worst and impotent at best.

This narrative runs counter to the one that has been popularized in the press about the indefatigable verbiage of blog-hungry millennials, but it is a crucial one. The proliferation of voices has made most of them seem valueless and wholly interchangeable, even for important topics. To use social media to publicly weigh in on polarized debates, from the death of Trayvon Martin to the Supreme Court’s striking down of the Defense of Marriage Act, seems to do nothing more than provide fodder for those who would attack us. This haunts many of us when we are eager to spill ink on an issue of personal importance but find the page to be always already oversaturated.

III.

Perhaps most crucially, the pluralistic climate has confused stances on moral judgment. Even though “difference” has historically been used, according to the philosopher Cornel West, as a “justification for degradation and a justification for subordination,” we millennials labor to relish those differences and distances separating individuals, exalting difference at all costs.

We anxiously avoid casting moral judgment. Because with absolute truths elusive, what claims do we have to insist that our moral positions are better than those of someone from a different nation or culture?

We millennials often seek refuge from the pluralist storm in that crawlspace provided by the expression “I don’t know.” It shelters the speaking-subject, whose utterances are magically made protean and porous. But this fancy footwork will buy us only so much time. We most certainly do not wish to remain crippled by indecision and hope to one day boldly stake out our own claims, without trepidation.Consider the challenge we might face when confronted with videos from the popular youth-oriented news outlet Vice. Here, viewers can watch videos of communities, from across the globe, participating in a host of culturally specific activities, ranging from excessive forms of eating to ritual violence to bestiality. While the greater Western culture may denounce these acts, a substantial millennial constituency would hesitate to condemn them, in the interest of embracing “difference.”

Jewish and Chinese Memory of Trauma

 hey y'all,
At kvutza seminar I mentioned that I was taking a class on Jewish Experience in China and as part of that course we have been discussing in depth the concept of cultural memory from both the Chinese and Jewish sides. In the spirit of bringing this part of my current life into the kvutza fold, I'd like to share with you all this essay my Professor wrote on looking at the holocaust and the Nanjing massacre. I find it super interesting, and it also ties in with what some people in the kvutza have been doing in relation to a Shoah choveret. so here is the link, I'm probably violating a copyright law doing this, that's true love: file:///Users/afriedland/Downloads/eres_0712093344_001_1.pdf  . Hopefully the link works <3 you all, Av'H,
Abigail

Sarai and Hagar - An interpretation.

Hi Chaverim!

So as you may or may not have known, I've been working on a project (with Lior and hopefully others soon!). The project is to reinterpret the texts of the Torah in a feminist light and make art out of it. During the seminar I shared the first installment about Adam and Eve. And I just finished the second one! This relates to the story of Hagar and Sarah, the two women who have Abraham's kids. So basically, what happens is that Sarah can't have kids, so she "gives" Abraham Hagar so they can have a kid. They have Ishmael. Once Hagar has a child Sarai gets pretty pissed off and is harsh, Hagar runs away. To convince Hagar to return God speaks to her and says that he will make a great nation out of her offspring. She returns and then Sarah is able to have a child: Isaac. So what we have here is two women with a rocky history both as the mothers of two great nations.

The way I chose to interpret the text was kind of a cautionary tale of what happens when women try to form bonds of solidarity when under the stressors of patriarchy and oppression. I choose to see Sarah and Hagars offspring as nations struggling to build each other. The women are in different positions of power, Sarah is free (not a slave) and legitimate while Hagar is not. Yet, at first Hagar has power because she is able to have children which Sarah is not. It takes a relative switch of power dynamics for Sarah and Hagar to be able to both be the life forces of great nations. But even in the face of great adversity from each other and from larger patriarchal systems, they are able to be the life force of nations. (Nations that don't necessarily have to be in a hierarchical relationship just because one is "chosen")

Aleh v'Hagshem,

Yael

Amos Oz on nationalism and Zionism

Hey chaverim--I used this text (which we read on kaveret) in a J Street peula about the meaning and complications of a Jewish state/any nation-state based on an identity. For me, this really nicely reflects the challenges of understanding Zionism in the context of nationalism.

This is the place to make my first shocking confession -- others will follow. I think that the nation-state is a tool, an instrument, that is necessary for a return to Zion, but I am not enamored of this instrument. The idea of the nation-state is, in my eyes, “goyim naches” - a gentiles’ delight. I would be more than happy to live in a world composed of dozens of civilizations, each developing in accordance with its own internal rhythm, all cross-pollinating one another, without any one emerging as a nation-state: no flag, no emblem, no passport, no anthem. No nothing. Only spiritual civilizations tied somehow to their lands, without the tools of statehood and without the instruments of war.

But the Jewish people has already staged a long-running one-man show of that sort. The international audience sometimes applauded, sometimes threw stones, and occasionally slaughtered the actor. No one joined us; no one copied the model the Jews were forced to sustain for two thousand years, the model of a civilization without the “tools of statehood.” For me this drama ended with the murder of Europe’s Jews by Hitler. And I am forced to take it upon myself to play the “game of nations,” with all the tools of statehood, even though it causes me to feel (as George Steiner) like an old man in a kindergarten. To play the game with an emblem, and a flag and a passport and an army, and even war, provided that such war is an absolute existential necessity. I accept those rules of the game because existence without the tools of statehood is a matter of mortal danger, but I accept them only up to this point. To take pride in these tools of statehood? To worship these toys? To crow about them? Not I. If we must maintain these tools, including the instruments of death, it must be not only with glee but with wisdom as well. I would say with no glee at all, only with wisdom--and with caution. Nationalism itself is, in my eyes, the curse of mankind.

--Amos Oz, 1982

Links to Debates

Alan Dershowitz vs. Peter Beinart
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ffa6qMUX6U

Alan Dershowitz vs. Jeremy Ben Ami
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHAEKYBm8gc

Alan Dershowitz vs. Noam Chomsky
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZO2-eZ-1WA8

Alan Dershowitz vs. Meir Kahane
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S_QeauyLgA

Peter Beinart vs. David Suissa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw6QWeiWQLk

Peter Beinart vs. Daniel Gordis
Part 1 http://vimeo.com/41592929
Part 2 http://vimeo.com/41608614

Jeremy Ben Ami vs. Bill Kristol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOeSjAKPxjc

Jeremy Ben Ami/Danny Ayalon/Yehuda Hakohen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV_A2HyJEew

Caroline Glick/Dani Dayan vs. Two lefties- "Is Israel destroying itself with its settlement policy?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rk60vNUJ9Y

Dore Gold/Alan Dershowitz vs. Michael Scheuer/Avram Burg- "Is it time for the US to get tough on Israel?"
http://www.thedohadebates.com/debates/player.asp?d=44

Norman Finkelstein/Andrew Cockburn (lol cockburn) vs Martin Indyk/David Ahranovitch- "Does the Israel lobby stifle debate?" or something along those lines
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qA-MywWpMg

Jeremy Ben-Ami vs. Ian Lustick, Yousef Munayyer and Ahmad Khalid- "Two states or one?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXIbI14xEAA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PXIbI14xEAA

The Secret of the Movement's Strength - Zivia Lubetkin

                The second question is from where did the pioneer movement derive its strength? The Zionist pioneering youth movements took on the responsibility of all Jewish public life, a bit too late perhaps, during the most difficult days. I believe that one does not have to probe too far to find the answer. It would be wrong, painfully wrong, to assume that the resistance displayed by the youth during the stormy days of destruction was the response of a few individuals, of Yitschak, or Zivia, or Mordechai, or Frumka. We have lived and still live with the conviction that our fate would have been very different had we not been members of the Movement, if we had not absorbed the values that it gave us from childhood.

                This is the real secret of the movement’s strength. The Movement always knew how to demand everything from its members. The Movement’s goal had always been to educate a new kind of man, capable of enduring the most adverse conditions and difficult times while standing up for the emancipation of our people, of the Jew, of mankind. It was our movement education which gave us the strength to endure.

                I don’t know if I succeeded in describing how much we tried to live up to those values. I did mention how we were almost obsessed at times with preserving the unblemished personal morality of each of our members as individuals, and of the movement as a whole….

               What gave us this moral strength? We were able to endure the life in the ghetto because we knew that we were a collective, a movement. Each of us knew that he wasn’t alone. Every other Jew faced his fate alone, one man before the overpowering, invincible enemy. From the very first moment until the bitter end, we stood together as a collective, as a movement. The feeling that there was a movement, a community of people who cared about each other, who shared ideas and values in common, made it possible for each of us to do what we did. The greatest tragedy was that the Jews did not know what to do. From the very first days of demoralisation in the ghetto until the final days of destruction and death, they did not know what to do. We knew. Our movement values showed us our goals and how to achieve them. This was the source of the strength to live. It is the very same source which keeps the survivors alive even today.

Elements of Kvutza

Respect is not fear or awe; it denotes the ability to see a person as he/she is, to be aware of the unique individuality. Respect means the concern that the other person should grow and unfold as they are. Respect, thus, implies the absense of exploitation. I want the loved person to grow and unfold for their own sake, and not for the purpose of serving me. If I love the other person, I feel one with him or her, but with them as they are, not as I need them to be as an object for my use. It is clear that respect is only possible if I have achieved independence, without having to exploit anyone else. Respect exists only on the basis of freedom, for love is the child of freedom, never that of domination.

The most fundamental kind of love, which underlies all types of love, is brotherly love. By this I mean the sense of responsibility, care, respect, knowledge of any other human being, the wish to further his life. This is the kind of love the Bible speaks about when it says: Love your neighbour as yourself. Brotherly love is love for all human beings; it is characterized by its very lack of exlusiveness. If I have developed the capacity for love, then I cannot help loving my brothers. In brotherly love there is the experience of union with the whole of mankind, of human solidarity. Brotherly love is based on the experience that we're all one.

The differences in talents, intelligence, knowledge are negligible in comparison with the identity of the human core common to all men. In order to experience this identity it is necessary to penetrate from the periphery to the core. If I perceive in another person mainly the surface, I perceive mainly differences, that which separates us. If I penetrate to the core, I perceive our identity, the fact of out brotherhood.

Intentionality: The first thing we have to learn is that love is an art, just as living is an art; if we want to learn how to love we must proceed in the same way we have to proceed if we want to learn any other art. Maybe here lies the answer to the question of why people in our culture try so rarely to learn this art, in spite of their obvious failures: in spite of the deep-seated craving for love, almost everything else is considered to be more important than love: success, prestige, money, power - almost all our energy is used for learning of how to achieve these aims, and almost none to learn the art of loving.

For loving relationships energy must be directed towards the creation and perpetuation of love. In other words, love must be intentional. Each member of a kvutza must actively develop and explore their relationships with each other as well as their understanding of themselves. These things cannot happen on their own, they need intentionality.

Love isn't primarily about relating to one specific person, but ''is an attitude, an orientation of character, which determines the relatedness of the person to the world as a whole, not toward one 'object of love.' '' It follows that authentic love isn't remotely connected to the familiar, superficial, and much-misunderstood notion of romantic love, or ''falling in love.'' Rather, it's a demanding and disciplined ''art'' that includes elements of care, effort, respect, courage, responsibility and knowledge. Love, like any other ''art,'' involves mastering both theory and practice.

Consensus
Consensus is a process for group decision-making. The goal of consensus is for the group to work collaboratively to achieve better solutions, and to promote the growth of community and trust among the group members. All the participants are encouraged to give ideas and input. The input and ideas of all participants are gathered and synthesized to arrive at a final decision acceptable to all. Consensus requires members to listen and understand all sides of the issue.

Many of the decisions we face demand that we find ways to listen to opposing points of view, and find ways to accommodate deeply held and differing values. Conventional decision making mechanisms tend to exclude rather than include diverse interests and do not cope well with the complexity that many social issues present. In spite of this, Consensus Decision Making is currently the least used form of conflict resolution, taking a back seat to majority voting, Robert's rules, adversarial processes, and power structures. In spite of this, decision making by consensus can also be the most powerful and durable form of agreement.

Decision making is as much about conflict as it is about agreement. Consensus works better in an atmosphere in which conflict is encouraged, supported, explored and resolved cooperatively with respect and creativity. Conflict is desirable. It is not something to be avoided, dismissed, diminished or denied.
While consensus decision making may not be appropriate in all circumstances, it can be invaluable in reconciling competing interests, forging cooperative partnerships and exploring creative solutions to complex issues. Consensus processes do not avoid conflict or require abdication of leadership - but call upon leaders to forge partnerships that work toward developing solutions. A consensus process provides an opportunity for participants to work together as equals to realize acceptable actions or outcomes without imposing the views or authority of one group over another.


Economics
What does this cooperation look like? The concept of mutual aid dictates the sharing of resources and services to better one another not to benefit the individual over another in terms of greater monetary value and prestige in society.

Mutual aid is arguably as ancient as human culture; an intrinsic part of the small, communal societies, universal to humanity’s ancient past. From the dawn of humanity, until far beyond the invention of agriculture, humans were foragers, exchanging labor and resources for the benefit of group and individual alike.

We have been given the message that it is human nature to compete with one another but that is because our society is based on competition. This does not mean however that society cannot be based on a different set of principles and values, ones that stress cooperation over competition.

Our very concept of human nature, what we believe human beings are even capable of is affected by our economic system. If we create a structure that promotes cooperation over competition our very concept of human nature changes.

KUPA: A communal fund which acts as a tool that kvutzot use to build relationships, shared responsibility, and communal ownership.

A Vacuum does not Exist

               A vacuum does not exist. Wherever we go, whatever we do, the reality around us affects us: our surroundings shape our beliefs, our relationships, our behavior, and every intimate thought we have. There is no vacuum. If we do not think about how we want the world to look, others will do it for us. If we do not take active steps to shape the world in the way we believe is right, someone else will do it instead. As a group we have the power to create a different reality, with different behavioral norms. Our power as human beings stems from our ability to think, to plan, and to decide how we want to be as human beings and how we want our society to look. Our tools are our house, our routine, our culture. By making conscious decisions about our surroundings and our day-to-day activities, we are choosing the specific elements that we want to affect and change us. We must not give in to codes that we think are harmful. The Socialist Zionist movement proved that it is possible to create real change, and as Socialist Zionists we understand that we must be active in shaping reality to reflect our ideals.

On the Difference Between Revolutionary Service and Community Service - Nikitah Okembe Imana

               There are essentially three distinctions to be made in differentiating between revolutionary service and community service. The first is to examine the modus operandi of the organization to see if it is self-replicating or self-eliminating. Community service organizations, for the most part, function with an eye towards maintaining a foothold in the communities they serve, in a sense, to legitimate their own role. This is self-regarding and it results in the creation of a proverbial service or "vanguard" elite that hoards the organizational training and resources over the heads of the "masses." The problem with this model, in addition to the fact that it is undemocratic, is that it can never truly lead to revolution, for the relevant populations remain perpetual subjects of liberation rather than initiators of liberation, and a revolution cannot come from the top and the bottom.
                Revolutionary service, in stark contrast, emphasizes the dissemination of the methods, resources, and techniques of revolutionary organization to the population it desires to liberate from some type of oppression. Consequently,   revolutionary organizations and their leaders are always to be perceived as short-term facilitators for the community's liberation. This requires a sacrifice in terms of ego and individual aspirations to become a member of some revolutionary elite. The motivation behind this temporal nature of a revolutionary organization lies in the corruption inherent in power relationships. This effect can only be minimized by minimizing in turn the amount of time any particular organization or individual has a monopoly on the implements of revolutions. Accordingly, the best revolutionary organizations are those that emphasize tool-building projects like the development of alternative, independent, and non-exploitive economic ventures, literacy and community-regarding education for all, alternative media, etc.
                The second difference between the two forms of interaction is between outreach and in-reach. Outreach results as a consequence of the community service perspective whenever the "vanguard," by virtue of its monopoly of the tools of the revolution, begins to distinguish between itself and the population it is attempting to serve. Whether you agree with their economic theories or not, Marx & Engels hit the nail on the head in "The Communist Manifesto" when they said that the true communist agitator could have no interest apart from the proletariat, the class he/she sought to the tools of revolution. The revolutionary ideology, the physical movement, and the human resources must be constituted and operated by the population itself.
                The third and final distinction between revolutionary service and community service is drawn out of the second. The community servant and the "true" revolutionary inevitably have different views about the outcome of their work. The best case scenario for the former is that he or she be able to perpetually institutionalized a response to the needs of the population being served. Even if systematic change renders this desire meaningless, the community servant takes pride in the act of service. As such, the enthusiasm of community servant is cyclical and their actions tend to lack unity of purpose. There is no dominant goal that integrates them. For the revolutionary, however, the revolution is perceived as inevitable, needing only the sufficient distribution of the tools. As such, revolutionary organizations tend to thrive "underground" despite cyclical fluctuations in popular "liberal" opinion, and have a much higher degree of understanding of purpose between individual actions, in relation to the actions of the whole group, and in relation to the relevant population.
                Given the rising tide of fascism in the United States, I believe that it will be critical for the liberal establishment not to become co-opted as were some French and Austrians in WWII, nor to try to reform the system which will bring only brutal repression. We must strike the beast that is the system where it lives, in the hearts and minds of the masses of people and to do that we must be revolutionaries and not just community servants.

The Rebel - Albert Camus.

What is a rebel? A man who says no: but whose refusal does not imply a renunciation. He is also a man who says yes as soon as he begins to think for himself. A slave who has taken orders all of his life suddenly decides that he cannot obey some new command. What does he mean by saying "no"?

He means, for instance, that "this has been going on too long", "so far but no farther","you are going too far', or again "There are certain limits beyond which you shall not go." In other words, his "no" affirms the existence of a borderline. You find the same conception in the rebel's opinion that the other person is "exaggerating", that he is exerting his authority beyond a limit where he infringes upon the rights of others. He rebels because he categorically refuses to submit to conditions that he considers intolerable and also because he is confusedly convinced that his position is justified. It is in this way that the rebel slave says yes and no at the same time. He affirms that there are limits and also that he suspects-and wishes to preserve-the existence of certain things beyond those limits. He stubbornly insists that there are certain things in him which are "worth while..." and which must be taken into consideration.

In every act of rebellion, the man concerned experiences not only a feeling of revulsion at the infringement of his rights, but also a complete and spontaneous loyalty to certain aspects of himself. Thus, he implicitly brings into play a standard of values so far from being false that he is willing to preserve them at all costs. Up to this point he has, at least, kept quiet and, in despair has accepted a condition to which he submits even though he considers it unjust. To keep quiet is to allow yourself to believe that you have no opinions, that you want nothing, and in certain cases it amounts to really wanting nothing. Despair, like absurdism, prefers to consider everything in general and nothing in particular. Silence expresses this attitude very satisfactorily. But from the moment that the rebel finds his voice-even though he has nothing to say but no-he begins to consider things in particular. In the etymological sense, the rebel is a turncoat. He acted under the lash of his master's whip. Suddenly, he turns and faces him. He chooses what is preferable to what is not. Not every value leads to rebellion, but every rebellion tacitly invokes a value. Or is i really a question of values?

An awakening of consciousness, no matter how confused it may be, develops from any act of rebellion and is represented by the sudden realization that something exists with which the rebel can identify himself-even if only for a moment. Up to now this identification was never fully realized. Previous to his insurrection, the slave accepted all the demands made upon him. He even very often took orders, he baled. He was patient and though, perhaps, he protested inwardly, he was obviously more careful of his own immediate interests-in that he kept quiet-than aware of his own rights. But with loss of patience-with impatience -begins a reaction which can extend to everything that he accepted up to this moment, and which is almost always retroactive. Immediately the slave refuses to obey the humiliating orders of his master, he rejects the conditions of slavery. The act of rebellion carries him beyond the point reached by simply refusing. He exceeds the bounds that he established for his antagonist and demands that he should now be treated as an equal. What was, originally, an obstinate resistance on the part of the rebel, becomes personified. He proceeds to put self-respect above everything else and proclaims that it is preferable to life itself. It becomes, for him, the supreme blessing. Having previously been willing to compromise, the slave suddenly adopts an attitude of all or nothing. Knowledge is born and conscience is awakened.

Responsibility and Freedom - Elisha Shapira

A person is liberated when he sheds all external restraints. A person becomes free when he sets his own goals and their limitations. Freedom is not a situation where there are no boundaries. Freedom is a situation where you determine your own boundaries. The boundaries that you set for yourself are derived from your choices and from your responsibility for those choices. The Jewish nation was liberated when it left Egypt, and when it shed the chains of slavery, but it became a free people at Mount Sinai, when it chose between the golden calf and the Torah with all its commandments and restraints.

Responsibility – not only does not contradict freedom, it is the essence of freedom. 

Since human beings are social creatures and do not exist in a vacuum, the choice is really only between two options: the first is to be swept away and subjected to rules, regulations, and norms that others created for you, without you, and which serve, whether you are conscious of it or not, goals that you did not choose. The second is to take part in setting the goals, and affecting the rules and norms that result from these goals. Regarding this second option, it is important to mention that this does not mean that, in real life, at any given moment, your responsibility and your will are not going to contradict each other. You might even feel sometimes that your responsibilities are taking away your personal freedom.

I am trying to create a “comfortable” world without contradictions. But this kind of world does not exist, and it is definitely not in my power to create it. But I am trying to develop a system that takes into account the contradictions that exist between man and himself, between man and his environment, and the dynamic processes that we are all part of, and within all of this to strive to be true to a moral conscience.

The Eight Degrees of Tzedakah - Maimonides

There are eight degrees in the giving of tzedakah, one higher than the other:

One who gives grudgingly, reluctantly or with regret.
One who gives less than should be given but gives graciously. One who gives correctly, but only after being asked.
One who gives before being asked.
One who gives without knowing who receives the gift, although the receiver knows who has given.
One who gives without making themselves known.
One who gives without knowing who receives the gift, and the receiver doesn't know who has given.
One who helps another to support themselves by a gift or a loan or by finding them a job, because in this way the receiver is helped to become self-supporting.

What is Consensus?

What is consensus?

Consensus is a process for group decision-making. The goal of consensus is for the group to work collaboratively to achieve better solutions, and to promote the growth of community and trust amoung the group members. All the partipants are encouraged to give ideas and input. The input and ideas of all participants are gathered and synthesized to arrive at a final decision acceptable to all. Consensus requires members to listen and understand all sides of the issue.

Decision-making 

Many of the decisions we face demand that we find ways to listen to opposing points of view, and find ways to accommodate deeply held and differing values. Conventional decision making mechanisms tend to exclude rather than include diverse interests and do not cope well with the complexity that many social issues present. In spite of this, Consensus Decision Making is currently the least used form of conflict resolution, taking a back seat to majority voting, Robert's rules, adversarial processes, and power structures. In spite of this, decision making by consensus can also be the most powerful and durable form of agreement! 

Consensus

Decision making is as much about conflict as it is about agreement. Consensus works better in an atmosphere in which conflict is encouraged, supported, explored and resolved cooperatively with respect and creativity. Conflict is desirable. It is not something to be avoided, dismissed, diminished or denied.

While consensus decision making may not be appropriate in all circumstances, it can be invaluable in reconciling competing interests, forging cooperative partnerships and exploring creative solutions to complex issues. Consensus processes do not avoid conflict or require abdication of leadership - but call upon leaders to forge partnerships that work toward developing solutions. A consensus process provides an opportunity for participants to work together as equals to realize acceptable actions or outcomes without imposing the views or authority of one group over another.

A consensus process is one where all those who have a stake in the outcome work together to reach an agreement acceptable to all parties. Consensus is sometimes spoken of as "more or less unanimous", or "virtual unanimity", or "consensus minus one..or two". But true consensus brooks no such dilution. Every party thus has a veto power, and unanimity may seem an unattainable goal - but consensus when achieved, creates commitment to the agreement, and that is a powerful motivating force. Either all parties support a settlement or there is no consensus. Although they may not regard all aspects of the agreement as ideal, consensus is reached if all participants are willing to live with "the total package."

Consensus vs. voting

 
Voting is a means to choose one alternative from several. Consensus is a process of synthesizing many diverse elements together. Voting is almost always faster than consensus, but it may deter full discussions of ideas and may leave subgroups that do not support a decision, and in the worse case, disaffected members may work to undermine the decision they do not support. Consensus tries to create solutions that all the group members will support.

Advantages of consensus

·         The process builds trust and a sense of community among the members

·         All ideas and viewpoints are heard and considered giving the widest range of ideas to work from

·         Solutions are supported by the whole group

Consensus may be difficult if:

·         The group is new and not used to working with each other.

·         The group does not understand consensus process or has some members who do not.

·         The group is larger than 20

·         People are upset about something but not willing to address the issue directly.

·         The issue is complicated and there are a lot of options.

·         There aren't any good options available.

·         The correct question hasn't been posed.

Consensus should probably not be used when:

·         Members of the group attack each other over their positions, causing people to not state their real opinions or truths for fear of being attacked.

·         There is no agreed upon mission, purpose or principals for the group.

·         There is not an agreed upon consensus process for the group to use.

·         There is a clear hierarchy in the system where one persons opinions dominate, eg the boss speaks and countering the bosses ideas will cause negative consequences.

·         Individuals use blocking as a means to get their way or threaten to do so in order to influence the outcome.

·         There really is not a best answer for the group as a whole. For   example, colour choices as a design issue are entirely opinion based, and whether green or blue is best is a matter of opinion. There is no best answer.

Disadvantages of Consensus Decision Making

·         Takes time in a group meeting to hear everyone's ideas and opinions; the larger the group, the more time needed

·         The group has to consider all viewpoints and sort them out

·         Trust is needed among members to encourage idea and opinion sharing

·         Group leaders must use facilitation rather than control

·         Blocking allows one individual to hold up the whole group

Sample Steps for a basic consensus process

1.        Describe and define the problem, situation, or issue

2.        Write the exact item so all can see and refer to it

3.        Encourage people to offer ideas, opinions, and comments relevant to the item

4.        Brainstorm a list of alternatives without judging, discussing, or   rejecting any ideas

5.        Evaluate the list of alternatives and create a draft proposal that combines the best of all the ideas

6.        Review, revise the proposal until it meets the best interests of the group

7.        Write down the final proposal

8.        Ask if any one has any issues regarding adopting the proposal, if there are none left, you have achieved consensus

9.        Evaluate the results later; revise if needed

Special consensus problems

·         Facilitator is lacking or poorly trained so group does not function effectively

·         The group is poorly trained in consensus, or has numerous new members that lack training or experience with consensus

·         People do not really share their ideas or objections in order to end the meeting quickly.

·         People agree to things they really don't want in order to get along or because they are afraid to speak up.

·         The group is deadlocked between two alternative proposals

·         Two or more group members dominate the issue, participation is not equal.

·         One or more group members withdraw from the process

·         Group avoids consideration of unpopular alternative ideas

·         Group climate is hostile, members attack each others ideas creating a negative atmosphere

·         Two or more group members have an unresolved conflict which affects the issue.

·         Behaviors, attitudes, or personality problems keep the group from working effectively

·         One member blocks, or threatens to block, for personal gain or to exercise power.

·         Issues do not get resolved, keep getting sent back to subgroup for more refinement, subgroup loses interest or becomes demoralized after continued efforts do not achieve a solution.

·         Group members who were not present at the discusssion bring up the same issues again.

·         Group members are not willing to compromise or work for the best interest of the group.