[Update: Please read the comments at the end of this post for the proper history of what has happened at East Wind Community in Missouri regarding Personal Shelters. They are the ones who have pioneered it, and the story i have in this post is slightly wrong. I will fix it in the coming days. Paxus]
Egalitarianism is tricky. It starts out tricky because we don’t even have a common definition of it in the income sharing communities where I spend most of my time. The relevant parts of the principals from the Federation of Egalitarian Communities which describe it are:
- Hold land, labor, income and other resources in common.
- Assumes responsibility for the needs of its members, receiving the products of their labor and distributing these and all other goods equally, or according to need.
- Uses decision making which gives members an equal opportunity to participate, either through consensus, direct vote, or right of appeal or overrule.
- Works to establish the equality of all people and does not permit discrimination on the basis of race, class, creed, ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
[There are other FEC principals, like non-violence and sustainability, but these are not the core of egalitarianism.]
So what is missing from this important list? For starters the idea that all work is evaluated as equally worthy. An hour of my time spent writing a blog about communities is worth the same as an hour spent making a hammock or cooking a meal for many members.
One aspect of egalitarianism (that is touched upon in the second point above, but some FEC communities take much further than others) is that we are trying to avoid envy. We do this in part by avoiding the uneven distribution of our collective resources, except in agreed cases of need (for example golf carts for people with mobility problems at Twin Oaks is a needs based intentional unequal distribution).
Which brings me to the controversial idea of personal shelters. The FEC communities provide housing for our members. In several cases these communities are located on pieces of land large enough for members to build their own housing separate from typical dorm-based housing. We call these usually small buildings “personal shelters”.
Quite some years ago East Wind community (on over 1,000 acres in the Ozarks) decided to permit their members to build personal shelters. This resulted in some handy/artistic folks building some really beautiful places. The problem is that these structures created envy. The bigger problem was when the original builder/owners left, they created a fairness problem. Members who had not been involved in the work of creating these shelters could potentially end up in housing that felt much nicer than what most people living in the community had access to.
The problem this created ultimately lead to East Wind banning the creation of more new personal shelters. Twin Oaks has never permitted them, largely because of East Winds’ experience. Acorn wrestles with permitting them and so far has not allowed them. Some Acorners who were really excited about the idea left to form new communities where such things are possible.
The arguments against personal shelters which GPaul outlined to me, late one night while we were driving back from a Point A gathering in NYC are:
- Energy Use/Carbon Footprint
- Psychic Space
One of the things income sharing communities do especially well is minimize their ecological impact. The dormitory style buildings we have share kitchens, bathrooms, living space and meals. This low impact living is very hard to achieve without a lot of people under the same roof. Personal shelters are usually just one or two persons under a roof.
The fairness issue is covered.
The issue I had never heard before was one of psychic space. In a regular community residence dorm, you know you can stand in the hall in front of someone’s room and not worry that you are infringing on their space. The same is not true of personal shelters. The space they take up is much larger than the physical footprint of their construction. Peoples don’t know how to behave around them and this can cause discomfort and confusion.
Do you think the benefits outweigh the costs?
[Edited by Judy Youngquest]
The Federation for Egalitarian Communities provided a mutual aid grant that funded this incomplete work. When it is finished it will be announced here. Thanks to the FEC for their support of improved communication in communities and outside of them. If you have suggestions for additional transparency tools, please comment on this post.
Draft Fingerbook on Transparency Tools and Transparency Groups [PDF version]
What is a transparency group and should I join one?
A group of people willing to share intimate information about themselves with each other, who are willing to explore their histories and emotions. While transparency groups are not designed to be healing in nature, it is generally the case that these searches improve the lives of those who try them.
You will need at least 3 people and it’s best if the group is fewer than a dozen. You should find a group who is willing to meet regularly, weekly is often desirable. Frequently, the members of these groups share something in common, a hobby, a residence, a team, a job, a community, a political or spiritual group. And transparency groups are not for everyone and often people who start out in them drop out when they find it is not their cup of tea.
“If you really knew me …” is one of the most basic tools for these groups. You complete this sentence with something which is largely not known by the group. It could be personal, it might be significant or just interesting, “If you really knew me you would know I had a fight with my lover this morning.: If you really knew me you would know I am afraid of heights” “I want to change jobs””…”I am doubting my faith””…”I don’t trust my boss” … “I have felt sick for days”. You can have one or several rounds of “If you really knew…” at the start of your meeting.
Cross-talk – with many tools it is important to let people finish what they are saying or for everyone to get a chance to speak, before you add something which was inspired by the things others said. And an important part of transparency is saying how things others have said make you feel, especially if the feelings are strong. Cross-talk is where you respond to another person’s spoken sharing.
Suggestions for cross talk:
If you are hurt or angry about something said, start your cross talk with asking if they are ready and willing to hear your feelings (see withholds).
be concise and as specific as possible.
talk more about your feelings and less about what you think, use sentences starting with “I ….” rather than “You….”
cross talk should be about things between you and the person you are responding to regarding things that they have just recently shared with the group
“What is hard for me to say is …” Shame, embarrassment and reservation are all targets of transparency techniques. This simple fill in the blank exercise is a sister to “If you really knew me”. It is also usually done in a go-round format and can be followed by cross-talk.
Withholds – if there is someone in the group who you are feeling less present with because of some unexpressed feeling or undisclosed upset, then you have a withhold (Suggestion: if when you look around you notice there is someone you’re not feeling connected to because of some unexpressed feeling or undisclosed upset, then you have a withhold). One of the purposes of these groups is to move through these feelings or beliefs by expressing them. Another purpose is to increase connection, and one way we block connections is by letting little upsets or fears build up. The channel between us then becomes clogged, so sharing ‘withholds’ is done in order to keep a channel clean and release a block. Because these are sometimes hard to hear, you should ask permission of someone, the standard format is:
Chris: “Sandy, I have a withhold for you. Can I share it with you?”
[Sandy checks in with themselves to make sure they can really hear it]
– or –
If Sandy says “no” the conversation ends and it is important for Chris to not try to convince Sandy that they should be allowed to tell them anyway. And hopefully Sandy does have space to hear the withhold. After the withhold is shared Sandy says: “Thank you”. A back and forth about the content of the withhold does not take place until 24 hours have passed.
When Chris tells Sandy the withhold, as much as possible, they talk about their distrust or judgement, rather than venting from an angry place. “I heard that you said………. and I felt upset about that. I thought you were being selfish and inconsiderate,” or, “I saw you do……. and I made it mean that you……………….. Now I worry that you will…………….” Don’t get too hung up on the format, Chris is encouraged to express how he really feels about whatever it is Sandy did or said.
Your job when someone shares a withhold with you is to listen, and not respond. After the withhold has been expressed you say “Thank you” to the person. If you did not understand their share you can say you have a clarifying question. But if you don’t agree with what they said or you want to correct their understanding of what happened, this is not the right time for that. Usually withholds are done in clusters, as in, the entire group takes time to see who has withholds with whom and then several people take turns sharing withholds with various others, always starting with: “I have a withhold for T. Are you open to hearing it?”
There is a new tool called “Unsaid” which is a withhold without the 24 hour wait. Mostly this has been used well, but I have let in quite some defensiveness in some sessions.
For the emotional strength and cohesion of the group, clearing through With-holds and unsaids are probably the most powerful tool in this set.
Hot Seat – This tool selects a specific person who the entire group will ask questions of – usually for a fixed period of time (between 5 and 15 minutes is recommended). Questions should be designed to be helpful and make the focus person be self revealing or gain deeper insights. The person in the hot seat should try to help the group see them more clearly – to be transparent. The people asking the questions should not hide from difficult topics, but their questions should come from a place of caring for the person, rather than attacking them, AND, it is okay to be critical, if this will help the person see themselves more clearly and reveal self destructive patterns.
In the last minute, the time keeper asks for ‘burning questions’ indicating that time is almost up and encouraging those people who haven’t asked their significant questions yet to no longer hold back.
I have a story about you. In this exercise participants are encouraged to tell stories they have about other members in the group, which are based on their assumptions or extrapolations. “I have a story that because you just had an ugly polygamous break up. You are doubting your commitment to poly and are wondering if you should go back to monogamy.” The prioritized responses you are looking for are:
What is true about your story that i had not said before is ____
Perhaps the reason you have this story is piece of my history that you are perhaps unaware of.
I have a strong emotional response to this story because _____
[Non-defensively as possible] This is why i think your story might not be true _____
What are your blind spots – this could be done as part of a hot seat exercise or by itself. What do you think are the problem areas that a member of the group is not seeing about themselves. Are they denying something which others think are true? People hearing about their blind spots are encouraged to start responding by saying “What feels true about what you are saying is …” Rather than responding defensively or contradicting the suggested blind spot.
Flow of Feelings – Quick emotional cycling techniques borrowed from the emotional side of your brain.
Training: The Natural Flow of Feelings, also known as Emotional Housecleaning:
I feel angry that … I feel grateful that…
I feel sad that…. I feel happy that…
I feel afraid that … I feel secure that…
I feel guilty that… I feel proud that …
This is a method of taking some trash out. Only one person does a flow at a time, the others only hold space and do not interrupt or comment. It’s a flushing out of the emotions. Following the order and trying each one on is an intention and an attempt to fan out the feelings, as getting in touch with things that might be obscured is thought to help us move past something. Identifying what might be affecting us is a powerful way to overcome it, or at least understand it/ourselves. The sentences should be short, and simple language. Think of 5 or 6 year old language. Sentences do not have to be factual, you are encouraged to try on something even if you’re not sure- no one is taking this as truth. For example “I feel angry that my husband hates me, i feel sad he thinks i am ugly”… staying away from abstract sentences such as “I am angry that I have a negative interpretation of my husband’s actions”, instead go for “I am angry I think this”. Also feel free to change words to represent feelings, especially encouraged with angry. To say “I hate that” or “I can’t stand that” or curse. Make it real. After you have exhausted each one, move onto the grateful side. Repeat each sentence until you feel done. Its okay to move back and forth from angry to guilty and back to angry, especially if stuff comes back up. Follow the general order but stuff bubbles up sometimes.
Transparency is not Consensus
While this finger-book recommends use of transparency techniques in collective decision making groups, it is not a replacement for consensus, or sociocracy, or other decision models. These transparency tools are designed to help us better understand each other and build trust. They are not a substitute for a formal decision process, though they usually help these processes run smoother. What the authors of this guide recommend is that collective groups run their decision making practice and their transparency work separately.