Goodreads Bookshelf
Four Positions
I have long been interested in non-hierarchical processes of decision-making or, at the very least, less hierarchical processes of decision-making. Western civilization, of course, is largely built on hierarchy. From kings and queens and "nobles" or priests, bishops, Popes, and the Almighty, up through Presidents and CEOs and Principals and the like, to the traditional family where Dad makes the decisions, may or may not take input from Mom, and the kids are expected to do what they're told and rarely consulted, civilization is a series of hierarchies in most aspects of our life.
It was probably reading Daniel Quinn's Ishmael and Beyond Civilization that really opened my eyes to how groups of people are structured and to the wider possibilities for doing so, though I'd already had intimations of this. For instance, when a year after graduating from college I went with eight friends on a four-week cross-country road trip, we operated largely by consensus. We decided where exactly we would go and what we would see on a consensual basis--not simply a democracy with everyone voting, but true consensus in which we all agreed before we took a course of action. That took compromise, of course, because we didn't all have identical interests, and it sometimes took an awful long time to reach consensus, but it worked. I can't say we made it through four whole weeks in idyllic tranquility (we were, after all, nine 23-year-old guys), but we were still friends by the end of the trip and still are today, and I believe that our consensual approach to decision-making we central to the successful working of the group.
It's been interesting to work at a Quaker school, where similar ideas are pervasive, though blended somewhat with a school's tendency toward hierarchy--we still have administrators who make decisions, but by and large there's a process of consensus building and discussion that is central.
Recently, listening to an interview with a guy named Brian Weller on a podcast, I came across an interesting implementation of consensus decision-making. Weller talked about the process used by the Okanagan peoples (natives of what is now Washington state and British Columbia):
Whenever big decisions were being made, they would sit in circle and speak from four places. Each person could speak from any one of these four. So if there was a big decision going forward… The four positions are the feminine ... the masculine ... the elder, and the child. The feminine position is, “how would this position impact our relationships?” And not just in terms of interpersonal relationships, but also relationships with the land and our local environment, in the full sense of that. So that would be a place that you could speak from. The male perspective … is more to do with action, planning, strategy: the details of what we’re going to do. It’s that outward stroke. Quite cerebral in many ways, the figuring out together. The elder position is the position of wisdom, and that position is one where people are saying “how will this decision affect our traditions? How will it affect the long-term viability of the land we live on? How is this decision consistent with those deep roots, where we come from? And then the fourth position is the child, which is representative of the future, since the children will inherit our decisions. And that’s to do really with vision, with our ideals, with the future that we want. So anyone in circle could speak from any one of these four positions, and the idea was to have a true consensual conversation, to explore all of these possibilities before we come to “the decision” in whatever aspect that decision is being looked at.
Even outside of consensus-based decision-making, the idea of working to look at a decision from those multiple perspectives has power. It's interesting too the way the process asks people to take a position somewhat outside of themselves. Not, of course, that it's likely (or possible?) that a person could completely check self-interest at the door, but this system--entered into honestly--would seem at least to mitigate that somewhat. Imagine, for a moment, if Congress would consider the questions before it in this way instead of in the often-selfishly-partisan way they now consider issues. Imagine if leaders of industry considered questions this way. Would we be destroying our future for immediate gain? I doubt it.
Your thoughts are, as always, appreciated.
I've noticed that in American politics, especially among conservatives,
decisions are made and positions are arrived at based mainly on the
short-term bottom line or consequences, rather than taking a long view to
consider how such positions and views will work out over time.