Marko Koskinen (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Mon, 12 Mar 2001 21:58:25 -0500
Thanks Bruce, that makes sense. Thanks also to Hanna for having some
really good and enlightening discussions with me.
But what I'm proposing, at least as I see it, is a structure where all
HAVE equal voice and in which individual rights ARE protected even more
than in democratic structure. People don't seem to believe that
consensus decision making is possible at least in larger groups, but I
DO. I'll have to check out that discussion you are talking about.
If, as I suppose, the consensus decision making would work, then is
there something inherent in it that is against the democratic ideals? If
so, could someone give me an example or something to describe a
situation that would be against it.
And what comes to the therapy issue, I really feel that people don't
know what I'm talking about. I really disapprobe any kind of traditional
psychotherapy where the therapist analyzes the patient. I guess you'll
just have to do with my assurance that the way I would practice and have
practiced it is totally non-coersive. If that's not enough for you, you
can order books from www.rc.org. (I can suggest some books if requested)
The theory is too complicated to be discussed here. I've tried to
explain it many times but usually failed misarably.
Third issue is about the assumption that the mediation process would
have something to do with "psychologizing" (whatever that means). I can
see where this assumption comes from, but I once again assure you that
this is not what I've ment. If feelings are involved in problem solving
(as they usually are), they don't make the process any more
"psychologizing" than it would be without them. I interpret the word
"psychologize" to mean that someone analyzes the situation or the
participants and tries to make them "see what's their real problem".
Well, as I said previously, I totally disapprove such processes. I
really don't like anybody telling me what my problems are, but I would
like someone to listen to me when I try to figure out myself what they
are. And also, I wouldn't like anybody to give me any advice how to
solve the problem, but again, I wouldn't oppose someone listening to me
while I'm trying to solve it.
What I'm trying to accomplish with this is to make sure that everybody
would feel safe enough to show their feelings and not hide themselves.
What I'm probably trying to fight is the irrational cultural "norms"
that appear as peer pressure.
> It is not the implementation of the proposals, but rather their content,
> which makes them inconsistent. I think this discussion is caught on a
> unique, but often overlooked, aspect of democracy: that it can vote itself
> out of existence. Voters in a democracy can vote to make it something other
> than a democracy. Think of all the times throughout history when people
> have voted in dictators and emperors. It is only the culture of democracy
> that truly preserves it: the desire to maintain structures where all have
> an equal voice, and in which individual rights are protected.
> Having said that, I suspect some would argue that we in this country have
> already allowed it to become something less than democratic.
> >People have been saying that what I've been proposing is not consistent
> >with Sudbury model. I'm just wondering why is that, because all that
> >I've suggested is not ment to be implemented without the whole school
> >community voting for it. I'm not planning to implement my own ideas "by
> >If I suggested these things at SVS School Meeting and they were voted
> >for, would SVS cease to be a Sudbury Model school?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:17:06 EST