Returning to paper
A reflection on the knowledge production of a theoretical essay,
written in the aftermath of making an anthropological essay film
Kato Smits
Master thesis, discussion paper (in addition to the ethnographic film) Msc Cultural and Social Anthropology, Visual Track 2020-2021 Supervisor: Mattijs van de Port
Second & third reader: Tina Harris, Yatun Sastramidjaja Student number: 11001011
kato.smits@outlook.com
Word Count (excl. table of contents, summary, bibliography): 14041 Submitted: 22-02-2021
Link to film: https://vimeo.com/515297629
Abstract
This essay serves as an additional paper to my ethnographic film.
My ethnographic film explores life in a cohousing community in Belgium. What are experiences of residents and what are the challenges they encounter when living with a group of people? In my film, I explore how residents go back and forth between guarding individual boundaries and working together to become and be a group. I found that individual needs and desires are given great attention to enhance the group feeling. Dealing with conflicting opinions is an important and inevitable aspect of the cohousing, and residents report how they see these moments as opportunities for personal growth. With my film I try to show how their notion of personal development serves the group, rather than being an individual good.
My final paper became a reflection of the first draft of my written essay. I write about the process of returning to paper and theory after making an anthropological essay film. I use my first essay–on the process of decision-making in the cohousing–as a document for my personal reflection. In my first essay I delved into the theories of Habermas’s (1984) communicative action and Mouffe’s (2000) agonism to analyse the decision-making process. I ended up writing a highly theoretical and dense text and lost my
explorative, open ended approach I used for making my film. Reflecting on this change in attitude; I explore the different kind of knowledge that is produced in the different forms of media.
Keywords: cohousing, communal, individual, decision-making, knowledge production, visual anthropology
Declaration on Plagiarism
I have read and understood the University of Amsterdam plagiarism policy http://student.uva.nl/mcsa/az/item/plagiarism-and-fraud.html?f=plagiarism. I declare that this assignment is entirely my own work, all sources have been properly acknowledged, and that I have not previously submitted this work, or any version of it, for assessment in any other paper.
Signed,
Inhoudsopgave
Introduction ... 6
2. Reflecting on my introduction ... 8
3. Reflecting on theorizing cohousing ... 11
4. Reflecting on theorizing consensus ... 12
5. Reflecting on theorizing agonism ... 16
6. Reflecting on linking theory to field ... 19
7. Reflecting on my conclusion ... 25
Conclusion ... 29
I don’t know anything anymore except this:
If Knowledge came to me in the thickest part of the night,
woke me with a flashlight, asked me, What do you know? I would say, nothing, nothing at all, except diving, and loving this world.
Introduction
After months of filming and editing, I returned to paper and the written word. I spent 3 months in a cohousing community in Belgium doing camera-based research. After editing the footage, where I tried to combine theory, image and sound, I was left with one more assignment: writing an essay.
I decided to write about one specific aspect of the cohousing, which was touched upon in my film, but wasn’t further developed through that medium. The topic of my essay would be an exploration of how people come to decisions. This way I wanted to place my findings of the cohousing in a wider debate on democratic practice. In De Okelaar (the cohousing was named after the walnut tree standing in the middle of the communal courtyard), the co-founders adopted a consensus driven decision-making model. Such a form of governance is based on the assumption that people are equal and that equality is expressed not by voting, but by collective rational reasoning. Here
decisions are made once each member can agree to a certain level with a proposal (Boeke, 1945).
However, due to rising frustrations and discontentment among residents, one year before my fieldwork took place, De Okelaar invited an external facilitator to teach them the methods of ‘Deep Democracy’. As opposed to ‘most votes count’ or rational deliberation, within Deep Democracy the group actively turns towards the minority and tries to integrate their ideas in the decision-making process. Conflict and dialogue are central to this method and are actively sought. This shift to Deep Democracy inspired me to turn to literature and delve into the theories on consensus and conflict and learn more about what is being said on the topic within the academic realm. This journey led me to the debate on consensus deliberative democracy on the one hand and agonistic theory on the other. Key figures in this debate are Jürgen Habermas and his
communicative theory (1984) and Chantal Mouffe and her thoughts on agonistic pluralism (2000).
My essay became an exploration and explanation of the two theories and an attempt of trying to apply them on the processes in De Okelaar. For a while I enjoyed the clarity and demarcation in which things were abstracted from social life and analysed in an intellectual sense. I eagerly soaked in their neat descriptions and let my thoughts wander around, jumping from one concept to the other, linking definitions and quotes with thoughts of my own. I delved into the texts and words and thought in their
language. But when I returned to my essay, to write about my findings and experiences, something interesting happened. I didn’t find my own language back. It was as if I was forced into their language game which blocked me from descending to De Okelaar, and myself for that matter.
The issue I wanted to explore in this essay was how agonistic outcomes, which entail a different kind of, integrating approach towards conflict, could create new possibilities in a consensus seeking context in De Okelaar. The point I wanted to make was that we are living in a time and place where consensus is considered as an ideal goal, something we should all strive for. And if we talk and reflect long enough, we can reach that goal, we can arrive at a central middle way. By spending time in De Okelaar I was intrigued by the question how a group of diverse people with diverse opinions can come to decisions where everyone feels heard and content. I wondered what a
democratic governing model would look like if we don’t try to reach that point in the middle. I wondered what it would look like if we embrace and work with opposing
positions and conflict as a point of departure, instead of a challenge to overcome. I wanted to challenge the idea that people are capable of rationally approaching any issue and explore how agonists propose that emotions and passions are inevitable aspects of democratic practice.
However, in the attempt of making this point, I struggled with putting my thoughts on paper. Many times, I got stuck in the writing process and it felt as if I was cut off of my own creativity and input. As if I was pushing myself to write not from the heart but from the academic, intellectual me (whatever that means), using words that were not mine, but of ‘academic authorities’. After I submitted my first draft to my supervisor, he responded rather surprised. He remembered the process of me making my film, the questions I asked and the attitude I used to approach my research field. He emailed me his feedback:
“Hoi Kato, ik las net je essay. Je gaat een interessante kwestie aan, en situeert je onderzoek in gesprekken en debatten die in political theory gaande zijn (Habermas, Mouffe) en in literatuur over co-housing. Ik moet je bekennen dat ik niet echt in thuis ben in political theory, en het moeilijk vind om te beoordelen wat je hier te berde brengt. Ik vind de tekst in delen erg 'dense' en 'droog', abstract (in de zin van ontvolkt; de mensen uit de Okelaar zijn volstrekt verdwenen) en ik erger me een beetje aan die model-matige denkers (maar erken dat ze er zijn, en dat je ze kunt gebruiken). Ik verbaas me echt over het radicale verschil tussen de explorerende, zoekende en aftastende Kato met een camera, en de Kato die modellen mobiliseert om sluitende antwoorden te krijgen in haar tekst. Dat je helemaal niets zegt over dit verschil vind ik een gemiste kans.”
“[Hi Kato, I just read your essay. You take on an interesting issue and situate your research in discussions and debates that are going on in political theory (Habermas, Mouffe) and in literature on co-housing. I must confess that I am not really familiar with political theory, and find it difficult to judge what you are bringing up here. I find the text in parts very 'dense' and 'dry', abstract (in the sense of depopulated; the people from the Okelaar have completely disappeared) and I am a little annoyed by those model-based thinkers (but recognize that they exist and that you can use them). I am really amazed by the radical difference between the exploratory, searching and scanning Kato with a camera, and the Kato who mobilizes models to get conclusive answers in her text. I think it's a missed opportunity that you don't say anything about this difference”]
Based on his reaction and my own experience of struggling with the theoretical format of writing, I decided to take a closer look at the essay I have written. Where did this change in research attitude come from? What follows is a personal reflection of how I went about trying to make my point on paper in the aftermath of making an anthropological essay film. I want to examine the knowledge produced in my film in comparison with the knowledge produced when returning to theory and writing. I structured the current paper by printing parts of the first written essay in grey fond. The grey text is presented primarily as a document for viewing and as object of my personal reflections.
2. Reflecting on my introduction
“I dream of writing that would be neither philosophy nor literature, nor even contaminated by one of the other, while still keeping- I have no desire to abandon this-
the memory of literature and philosophy.”
Jacques Derrida (1992, p.73). In my essay I started out ethnographic style, introducing the reader to De Okelaar and the people making up my fieldwork like this:
“Introducing the field
My camera-based research took place in De Okelaar during the summer of 2020. De Okelaar is a cohousing community that 39 people call home. The community founders developed three pillars by which residents aim to live: ecological, social and spiritual. Ecologically, members of the community strive to live self-sufficient through consuming green renewable energy, through usage of environmentally friendly products and sharing of communal services. Socially, they are an ‘open residential community’ meaning that members of the community participate in the social and cultural life of the village in which they reside. Through social projects and relative low rents, the community is accessible for people from different social and economic backgrounds. Members of the community work or study outside the community. Lastly, the spiritual pillar stands for the aim to “actively and permanently grow in consciousness” (Vranken & Callebaut, 2017). The two other pillars, ecological and social resulted from the spiritual pillar encouraging respect and care for all that lives.
My research population consisted of the members living in the community permanently, as well as volunteers staying temporarily in the community to help build and maintain it. During my stay, there were 39 individuals living in the residential units of which 9 of them were children under eighteen. Members of the community (excluding younger children) are aged between 25 and 88. Half of De Okelaar population is under 40 years old. Of the total number of people, 8 are living in couples, 14 residents are living single. There are more women (19 women) living in de Okelaar than men (11 men). All except one family have a Belgian background and white skin color and speak Flemish as their mother tongue.
What struck me most about this place was the diversity among residents. These individuals that chose to live together were different in many ways, having different ideals and interpretations of the three pillars and cohousing in general. Motivations behind moving to the cohousing community ranged from the desire to create living circumstances other than the individualized standard, to ‘ageing in place’ and being surrounded by people to create things together and being supported when in need of help. An extra note should be made on the mentioned diversity among residents. Co-housers' emphasis on collective living as the ‘alternative’ to contemporary housing options does not correspond to the highly organized systems of exchange and support that continue to exist within impoverished communities (Sullivan, 2016, p.605). This could explain why de Okelaar and cohousing in general is largely made up of white middle-class people, since cohousing offers an alternative for ‘their’ current living standards.
The central issue that I pursued in my anthropological film, which expressed itself over and over again in different contexts was the balancing act between the individual and the group. What I found was that individual desires and needs were given great
attention in order to keep the group’s dynamic ‘healthy’. As one resident put it “the group serves the individual, not the other way around”. Living in a community is not something that comes naturally, even though some paradoxically point out that this is the natural way for humans to live. The general idea that residents expressed was that we, as human beings, forgot how to live together and in order to make the community work, a lot of energy is put into meetings and round tables where issues are discussed and talked about and decisions are made ‘horizontally’. As Sullivan (2016) found in her study on a co-housing community, co-housers seek to reestablish the centrality of the community, but they are bound together by distinctly individualistic pursuits.
Decision-making in De Okelaar
During my fieldwork in the cohousing, I conducted many open-ended interviews with the residents. Shaped by my original research question I focused on asking about the spiritual pillar which guided the community spirit. The most common interpretation of the spiritual pillar was ‘respect’ for one another. This is a very broad interpretation, however interestingly, conversations about ‘respect’ ended up being about the process of decision-making and how it is managed in De Okelaar.
Based on these interviews, I found that many residents are rather frustrated about how it is handled right now. Although not official, De Okelaar manages the community through a consensus seeking model. Most, if not all cohousing communities are in favor of participatory process and collaboration, through seeking consensus. Such a form of governance is based on the assumption that people are equal and that equality is expressed not by voting, but by collective rational reasoning. Here decisions are made once each member can agree to a certain level with a proposal (Boeke, 1945).
Research shows that every cohousing community works around their own interpretation of consensus and how to achieve it (Gladu, 2020). Through my conversations with residents, I learned that in De Okelaar they try to make a distinction between ‘consensus’ and ‘consent’. Decisions about matters that are considered as important, like for example financial matters, are deliberated with the goal of achieving consensus. This means that no voting practices take place, but instead emphasis is put on deliberation and dialogue. As one resident puts it:
“Consensus means that you really let everyone speak, everyone has to let their voice be heard, and we make a lot of time for doing so. [...] Consensus means that you invite and expect from everyone that they express their opinion, and that they can say ‘yes’ wholeheartedly. For some things this is really necessary, suppose you have to reconsider a decision one year later, because it didn’t work out as expected, then you have the entire group together that has to rethink possibilities, then you don’t have dropouts who say “well, I said so before, so you can figure things out now without me”. Then you start having different groups and I don’t know if this can be fixed afterwards. I don’t want to say that no mistakes were made in the past, but the intention was always there. [...] Consent means that you have different subgroups that have a mandate, or they prepare proposals for the entire group which they can later on agree on, but not everyone has to do the research on how to manage things. The subgroups are open so everyone who wants to decide on certain topics can join.” Mia.
Although there are many approaches to a governing model that emphasize agency and collaboration, a frequently used model within cohousing communities is the sociocratic
governance model designed by Gerard Endenburg (Romme & Endenburg, 2006), which De Okelaar implemented as well. This model aims at enhancing the capacity of the organisation to govern, organize and learn from itself (Gladu, 2020). Key to this understanding of governing is the idea that structures are multifaceted, dynamic and ever-evolving through dialectical interactions (Gladu, 2020). How this works practically is that decisions are made at different levels of the organization by groups or circles using informed consent.
In De Okelaar all members were invited to participate in the monthly ‘core-groups’, an all members meeting. These general meetings were complemented by sub-circles, made up of smaller groups of the same members. These smaller ‘work-groups’ were given mandates to make decisions on certain domains of the community as explained in the quote above. The information from the work-groups was then reported back to the entire group through the overlapping membership of these sub-circles. The idea is to create formal spaces for objections to be expressed and discussed and explored by the group by naming the issues and inquiring into them. This design creates a system where informed consent is facilitated at all levels without requiring too many deliberative meetings.
This being said, almost all residents reported back to me how tiresome the many meetings can be and how they would prefer less, however aware of the necessity of them. Many feel that in the community still a lot of time is spent on meeting and talking, and residents feel frustrated about how much energy it consumes from them. During the conversations I had with residents, some shared how they feel unheard and overruled by others who always take the role of ‘leading figure’. For them consensus feels as a buzzword that smooths out the differences in opinion among residents reinforcing the status quo. Instead of achieving consensus they feel that “when you disagree, after a while you just give up”. They prefer voting over deliberation, because they believe it will show better the minority which enhances their chances of being heard. On the other hand, a number of members of the community is convinced that consensus is the ideal goal to be reached and if managed properly, possible to arrive at. Nevertheless, there is ‘consensus’ on the fact that decisions should be made together and horizontally.
All these expressions made me wonder, if a relatively small group of people decides to live together, to manage commons together, is there a possibility of achieving consensus? Is it possible to get the whole group aboard and saying ‘yes’ wholeheartedly as one resident put it? And if there is, how can individuals go about reaching this goal?
The purpose of the current essay is to go into depth in the theoretical discourses on consensus by using Habermas’s theory on communicative action and Mouffe’s conception of agonistic pluralism which provides a critical account of the consensus model. First, I will elaborate on what a cohousing is and what it’s not, then I will go into depth of consensus and deliberative democracy and finish with an exploration of the possibilities of agonism as a way to use pluralism and conflict in a fruitful manner.”
Based on these reflections of my own and what I read in literature on other cohousing communities, I found that the process of decision-making within communities is a widely debated subject. Authors have linked processes in cohousing communities with debates on alternative forms of democracy before. This led me to turn to political theory as a framework wherein I would develop my essay. After this ethnographic introduction where I wrote from a personal perspective and experience point of view, I turned to this political framework. First, I continued writing about what a cohousing is and what it is not, based on academic literature:
3. Reflecting on theorizing cohousing
“Cohousing
Cohousing communities are often confused with utopian intentional communities, however there are some significant differences which makes cohousing a different kind of living arrangement. It is a form of non-profit community, whereby residents participate in the project’s design, development and management (Gladu, 2020). Each household lives in a separate fully functional housing unit, while having access to shared spaces owned and managed in common. The commons are a central characteristic of cohousing and serve as space for communal and individual pursuits. It can entail interior and exterior spaces, a large kitchen, dining hall, guest rooms, meeting space etc…
Kathryn McCamant and Charles Durett were two architects who first came up with the term (Boyer & Leland, 2018). Every project is led by a different community and therefore they all develop their own identity and culture and can differ in size, design and ownership models (Gladu, 2020). However, according to McCamant and Durett, “most cohousing communities share six characteristics: participatory process, designs that facilitate community, common facilities, complete resident management, self-organizing, collective approach to decision-making and no shared income” (Gladu, 2020). Especially the last characteristic is what differentiates cohousing communities from intentional communities.
In the case of the Okelaar, the old monastery was rebuilt ecologically to a cohousing with 23 housing units, a communal garden, kitchen, meeting space/dining hall, office, recreational space, and children’s playroom. The residents become legal co-operatives who are self-governing in the sense that they all are expected to participate in the decision-making process concerning the commons. Generally, each cohousing community creates its own governance model with the goal of not only managing the community but also building connections and interdependencies between neighbours (Gladu, 2020). As mentioned before, De Okelaar governs its community following a deliberative consensus model.
I want to place my ethnographic findings of De Okelaar within the wider debate of democratic theory. The cohousing setting serves as a good example of the practical application of deliberative democracy. It is a non-governmental market approach where citizens organize themselves to make decisions collaboratively. Moreover, the constellation of private homes and the constant interaction of members of the cohousing community provides a context where conflicts are inevitable and more personal, which makes them more difficult to manage. In the next chapter I will explore Habermas’ concept of communicative action which serves as groundwork for the deliberative consensus model.”
Rereading this part, I already notice a shift in the language I use. Instead of building a story of my own I start using others to tell a story. It is not me describing what a cohousing is and what is not, it is me analyzing and reproducing what is being said by others. In my film, I also needed an introduction to where we are and in what kind of setting the story will unfold itself. I used observational shots of the place and the building and let the background noises take the viewer to this place. One of the
verbally pin down what this place is and provide definitions on what it is not. Moreover, I did not choose to include and quote images of cohousing communities made by other researchers in my film. Instead, images and sound recorded by me in a particular time and place are shown.
Later, I wrote about places and practices researched not by me, but by other academics. Much of the information I included in the essay stemmed from articles and academic texts. It was only me who decided on what to include and what not. For me writing was straight forward. In the editing process, two different scenes put together for one reason could have the effect of inspiring me to say something else. Something I did not think of beforehand but was shown to me by the footage. It is true that a lot of factual information is not found in my filmic introduction, but then again, a lot of informational and sensorial associations are left out in my written description of a
cohousing. For example, the experience of living in a cohousing is very much dependent of the seasons. During summer people are more likely to hang out in the communal garden where more interaction and activities arise, where in the winter people tend to withdraw in their own private units. In my filmic introduction you are immediately aware of the summer vibes, showing the context in which my research took place.
Lastly, as my supervisor wrote in his email: Ik vind de tekst in delen erg 'dense' en 'droog', abstract (in de zin van ontvolkt; de mensen uit de Okelaar zijn volstrekt
verdwenen). [I find the text in parts very ‘dense’ and ‘dry’, abstract (in the sense of depopulated; the people of De Okelaar vanished completely)]. In writing down theory on cohousing, very little information on De Okelaar is included. I do not claim that written word has inevitably this effect on knowledge production, I am describing what this medium did for me and how it changed my research attitude. The next chapters of the essay will go into depth of the political theories of first Habermas (1984) and his communicative theory on which consensus deliberation is largely based and second, agonistic pluralism as theorised by Mouffe (2000).
4. Reflecting on theorizing consensus
“Consensus according to Habermas
De Okelaar finds itself several kilometers from Brussels, the capital of the European Union, an alliance built on democratic values and practices. Democracy today however evolved to something different from when it was first developed in ancient Greece. According to Mouffe’s (2000), ‘modern’ democracy is marked by the principle that power
Figure 2. Resident explaining what cohousing is to her Figure 1. Introduction shot cohousing
should be exercised by the people, which is embedded in a liberal framework with its emphasis on individual liberty and human rights.
Today liberal democracy is recognized as the most legitimate form of government. However, there is a growing interest in deliberative democracy as a new form of democracy. In politics, as well as in management, organization and design studies, deliberative democracy has received growing attention (Gladu, 2020). Within deliberative democracy, decisions should be reached through a process of deliberation among free and equal citizens, so not through mere voting.
Mouffe (2000) argues however, that this deliberative faculty has accompanied democracy since its birth in ancient Athens. So, rather than a new paradigm, she sees it as a revival of and a reaction to what is called the ‘aggregative democratic model’. This model assumes that due to the development of mass democracy, popular sovereignty as understood by ancient democracy, is no longer feasible. With the aggregative model, emphasis was put on the aggregation of preferences, expressed through political parties for which people can vote regularly (Mouffe, 2000). Here democracy has become a system in which people have the opportunity of accepting or rejecting their leaders through a competitive electoral process. The aggregative model supposes that “self-interest is what moves individuals to action, and not the moral belief that they should do what was in the interest of the community” (Mouffe, 2000). Therefore, interests and preferences should provide for matters over which individuals should vote, not common good or general will. It was now a compromise among interests that would create order rather than encouraging citizens to participate in decision-making over common good.
In this way, according to Mouffe (2000), democratic politics was stripped of its moral dimension, to which deliberative democracy reacts upon. By recovering the moral dimension, deliberative democrats believe that it’s possible to reach a consensus that would be deeper than ‘mere agreement on procedures’ (Mouffe, 2000).
Communicative action
Modern theories on deliberation are rooted in Habermas’ principles of communicative
action, stating that “those impacted by the decisions made by both business and
government should be able to consent to these actions, but only after engaging in a process of rational and free discussion” (Gladu, 2020). In short, Habermas argues that the meaning of a speech-act depends on its validity claim. The validity claims function as a guarantee that the speaker could bring forward reasons that would convince the interlocutor to accept the utterance (Finlayson, 2005). When the guarantee is tacitly accepted by the interlocutor, it functions to coordinate their interactions, thus creating a successful communicative action. In other words, when both speaker and hearer reach consensus through mutual understanding, they move from communication to action, and actions are tacitly coordinated by validity claims (Finlayson, 2005). However, when a validity claim is rejected by the interlocutor and a request is made for adducing reasons, the agents are moved by disagreement from an action situation into a discourse situation. In this case, discourse is communication about communication that reflects upon the disrupted consensus in the action situation (Finlayson, 2005).
According to Habermas (1984), discourse is not the same as speech, but it is a reflective form of speech that aims at reaching rationally motivated consensus. Secondly, discourse is a default mechanism for regulating everyday conflicts in modern societies. Lastly, discourse is a complex and disciplined practice that consists in the following of certain rules, of which consistency and accountability are important ones. The rules refer
to on the one hand, that every agent must undertake to assert only what she genuinely believes in, and on the other hand, that agents undertake either to justify what they request or provide reasons for not offering justification (Finlayson, 2005). The third level of these rules function to protect the process of discourse against coercion, repression and inequality. These include that every subject with the competence to speak and act is allowed to participate in the discourse, everyone is allowed to question any assertion, everyone is allowed to introduce any assertion into the discourse and express her attitudes, desires and needs and no speaker may be prevented from exercising her rights as explained above (Finlayson, 2005).
Habermas argues that these rules are implicit and necessary because no one participating in discourse (in giving and taking of reasons) can avoid making them. According to him, there is no available alternative to communication as a way of resolving conflict for agents in modern societies. The rules of discourse are idealizing in that they “direct participants towards the ideal of rationally motivated consensus. A discourse in which the voices of all concerned are listened to, in which no argument is arbitrarily excluded from consideration and in which only the force of the better argument prevails, will, if successful, result in a consensus on the basis of reasons acceptable to all. In real life, where time is limited and participants prone to error, discourses will only ever approximate these ideals to a greater or lesser degree. Yet they can still have a regulative effect of ensuring inclusiveness, comprehensiveness, and the absence of deception and coercion. These ideals are regulative, but they are also real insofar as the practice of argumentation in which they are inscribed is real'' (Finlayson; p.44, 2005).
He goes on stating there are two mechanisms responsible for social coordination of individual actions, or in other words, two ways in which agents can interact in the social world: through instrumental or communicative action. Characteristic of instrumental action is that the end of the action is determined beforehand and independently of the means of its realization (Finlayson, 2005). Here an individual is seen as someone oriented towards their own personal success and who acts accordingly. In this kind of actions, each person sees the other person as a source of something they want or need. This kind of relationship may lead to conflictual debate rather than dialogue, since individual advantages are seen as more important than cooperation (Gladu, 2020).
On the other hand, when agents participate in communicative action, they undertake actions to reach a shared understanding. This engagement requires that each participant recognizes the self of the other person in the relationship, and not just as instrumental for their own desires. Communicative action's inherent goal is the recognition and acceptance of a validity claim (Habermas, 1984), so participants should be interested in truth and coherence rather than being proven right. This asks participants to be willing to abandon and let go of one’s old ideas and intentions, in order to develop a shared understanding, which in its turn allows for creativity and constructive moments through dialogue.
As mentioned above, De Okelaar works around a consensus model where deliberation and coming to some sort of agreement ‘together as a group’ is seen as central to their governing model. What makes it self-governing is that in the end there are simply no other people or processes to blame for negative outcomes, they have to manage together as a group. This voluntary self-governing in consensus style pushes them to engage in dialogue where different perspectives can be addressed.
Typical to this structure is the creation of dialogic spaces to address blocks in decision-making. In literature, dialogue is described as “a collective activity between at least two people who take turns speaking, allowing participants time not to only listen to
the other but also to consider their responses to what is being shared with them” (Gladu, 2020). Dialogue is thus a process of sense-making since people see and experience the world differently which encourages greater reflection by participants. It is a shared process to create a mutual understanding through examination into the processes and expectations that make our everyday experiences. Even though one might have expectations in terms of the outcome, characteristic of dialogue is its open endedness where the participants don’t know the end results in advance.
Dialogue encourages participants to distance themselves from their existing understanding of the world and their ideas and to foster a more reflexive mindset (Habermas, 1984). This reflexivity can be achieved through self-consciousness and norm interpretation and can help to create the common understandings of contexts and expectations (Gladu, 2020). In other words, dialogue, according to some scholars, allows participants to overcome institutional and psychological barriers that would otherwise limit their thinking (Giddens, 1984; Gladu, 2020). Within a deliberative democratic approach, dialogue may change what could become a conflict into a constructive moment, where participants feel that they have gained more benefits than costs by engaging in the issue (Gladu, 2020).
All of this laid out above, does not suggest that engaging in dialogue will always successfully lead to agreement. Many scholars have criticized Habermas’ theory on communicative action and its claim on rational judgement as a theory avoiding the possibility of a plurality of truths (Gladu, 2020, Mouffe, 2000). In what comes next I will explore the criticism on Habermas’ theory through the eyes of ‘pluralistic agonism’ as proposed by Mouffe (2005).”
As you can see, I jumped deep into political theory and used models to analyse a social practice. The question I can ask myself now is how they helped me in understanding processes I saw in De Okelaar. With the exploration of Habermas’ theory, it seems like I distanced myself far from the cohousing community I did my fieldwork in. I explored what consensus means, what the definition of dialogue is and what the rules are in order to achieve productive dialogue. In the back of my mind, I knew I was immersing myself in this political theory because I wanted to understand better why not all residents of De Okelaar were content with the consensus governing model. I wanted to see if the theory fit the real-life dialogues I had encountered.
But as I wandered around in theory and words, I found myself thinking in a dimension detached from any real-world experience, struggling to find my way back to the grounds on which De Okelaar was built. I remember during editing my film, when I departed from abstracted ideas and narrative chapters, my own footage pulled me right back to the ground, where shots of hands working in the mud reminded me of the tangible.
Nevertheless, during the making of the film, theory stimulated me to look at my findings with different eyes and find new observables. Since my interlocutors themselves were knowledgeable on consensus and deliberative practice, the theory on consensus was not completely new for me but it did push me in the direction of the literature I chose to use for the essay. Moreover, reading deep into Habermas’ theory did clarify what motivated residents of De Okelaar to engage in this process. Secondly, because of their recent engagement with Deep Democracy which proposes an alternative method of decision-making, I was inspired to look at different literature as well, leading me to Figure 3. Working in De Okelaar courtyard.
agonistic theory. In what follows, I tried to describe in my essay ‘agonism’ in the same way as I did with Habermas’ theory:
5. Reflecting on theorizing agonism
“Agonism according to Mouffe
As a response to a popular deliberative democratic model wherein communicative rationality and dialogue are central, ‘agonists’ believe that consensus in itself is always excluding. Mouffe (2005), a key figure in theorizing agonism, departs from the idea that modern liberal democracy has a paradoxical nature based on the tension between liberty and equality, that can never be overcome. Because of their respective logics, they prevent each other's full development and represent an obstacle to the complete realization of perfect liberty and perfect equality.
However, this should not be seen as a contradiction, but as a paradox which is the very condition of possibility for a pluralist form of human coexistence (Mouffe, 2005). Based on the incompatibility of this paradoxical nature, democracy inherently always departs from a confrontation of conflicting interpretations of the liberal democratic values. In order to effectuate inclusion, Mouffe and other agonistic scholars emphasize the importance of conflict, struggle and disruption (Honig, 1993). Instead of trying to eliminate this tension through a rationalist consensus approach, agonists posit the possibility of a stable, plural and inclusive democracy without working with consensus, which is exclusive. Rancière (2004) argues that consensus means erasing the conflictual nature of the very givens of common life. Mouffe (2005) continues that the pursuit of consensus between parties doesn’t leave room for the passions and emotions common to difficult human interactions. She believes that seeking consensus through deliberation will not always lead to agreement and the only way to manage the pluralistic nature of modern democracy is to leave room for differences.
The concept ‘agonism’ stands for a non-violent political difference (Mouffe, 2005). It can be better understood when compared to antagonism, which is an exchange between enemies, whereas agonism is an exchange between adversaries (Mouffe, 2013). The difference lies in the character of the conflict, where in agonism, adversaries recognize each other as legitimate opponents, despite the insoluble conflict. One of the main concerns of agonists with deliberative democracy is the relationship between seeking consensus via deliberation and the management of conflict.
Mouffe (2005) challenges the idea that allegiance to democratic values is created through rational argumentation and emphasizes the importance of power relations and passions. The challenge of the agonistic approach however lays in the stable expression of conflict and how to manage it within a democracy. Deliberative democrats like Habermas do not have to deal with this since they eliminated the ineradicable conflict from their theory. Mouffe’s answer to this challenge is her theory on agonistic pluralism.
Pluralistic agonism
As mentioned before, Mouffe departs from the idea that a specific characteristic of politics is its distinction between ‘friend’ and ‘enemy’ based on the theory of Schmitt (2007). The enemy is a collective identity standing opposite to another collectivity,
forming an existential threat. The antagonism between friend and enemy is ineradicable, without it, there would not be ‘politics’ (Schmitt, 2007; Mouffe, 2005).
Schmitts’ answer lies in homogeneity within the political community: the dimension of conflict should be placed outside the society. Every form of equality of citizens requires a form of inequality with respect to non-citizens. According to him, there is no room for pluralism within a political society because it requires homogeneity. Pluralism exists only between political communities. Mouffe reacts to this by bringing pluralism and conflict inside the community that does not require homogeneity (Mouffe, 2005). However, agreeing with the ineradicable friend-enemy antagonism, she argues that it could be conversed to an agonistic conflict.
Important in her theory is the role of hegemony. Social order is constructed through acts of power and not merely through rationality. Every society is brought about by hegemonic practices trying to establish social order. Thus, in this view, social order is not a given or a form of social objectivity, it is politically constructed, and every social order can be overthrown by contra-hegemonic practices striving for a different hegemonic order (Mouffe, 2005). Consequently, she considers it possible to create political connectivity strong enough to form a ‘demos’ that is nevertheless compatible with pluralism and conflict.
Her answer lies in pluralistic agonism. Here the us/them relationship has moved from an antagonistic character with no common ground to an agonistic character where adversaries recognize each other as legitimate opponents, despite the insoluble conflict (Mouffe, 2005). She still recognizes that the us/them relationship is potentially antagonistic, but she believes in the possibility of conversion towards agonism.
How that conversion can take place depends on two aspects. First, she emphasizes the importance of institutions within the society that foster conflict in an agonistic matter. Here, adversaries of a conflict are bound by loyalty to the democratic values of liberty and equality (Mouffe, 2005). The conflict takes place because adversaries want their interpretation of the values to become hegemonic. She calls this conflictual consensus between adversaries: all agree on the ethico-political values of liberty and equality but disagree on the implementation of it (Mouffe, 2005). But most importantly, the procedures wherein the conflict takes place are stable and agreed upon by the adversaries.
A second aspect underlying a possible conversion to agonistic conflict lies in mobilizing passions concerning democratic themes, or what she refers to as a democracy of emotions (Mouffe, 2005). According to Mouffe, voting or acting politically in general, is not an individual matter where personal matters are rationally considered and deliberated, but it is about identifying with a collective identity. In other words, emotions and the affective dimension matter. Plural collective identities may lead to antagonistic conflict and can inflict social disorder. Mouffe (2005) therefore argues that it is important that political parties provide conflicting forms of identification that mobilize passions around democratic values, to prevent that passions focus on essentialist forms of identification that cause antagonisms. The absence of agonism within democratic institutions may lead to conflicts where adversaries become enemies that don’t recognize their opponent as legitimate and want to exclude each other (Mouffe, 2005). In this perspective, passions are not seen as merely individual matters or as irrelevant as in many rationalistic political theories, and power relations which structure contemporary post-industrial societies are recognized and questioned.
With her pluralist agonism she criticizes the political way that advocates a form of politics which pretends to be located beyond the ‘left and right’ categories, creating a
consensus at the centre (Mouffe, 2005). She argues that the consensus model is unable to grasp the fundamental confrontation between the components of the liberal-democratic character of contemporary politics which ultimately is jeopardizing the future of democracy. “What is specific and valuable about modern liberal democracy is that, when properly understood, it creates a space in which this confrontation is kept open, power relations are always being put into question and no victory can be final. However, such an 'agonistic' democracy requires accepting that conflict and division are inherent to politics and that there is no place where reconciliation could be definitively achieved as the full actualization of the unity of 'the people'” (Mouffe, 2005, p15).”
Where in the beginning of my essay traces of De Okelaar were recurring, now the cohousing has completely disappeared. While writing this part, I felt the need to keep the theory clean and neat out of worry it would become messy. What the exploration of this theory did was providing me with a framework in which I could understand some of the discontentment I encountered with the residents of De Okelaar. It inspired me to understand the decision-making processes of De Okelaar in a new way, answering some personal questions I had during my stay on how to deal with such a variety of opinions and conflicts that arise from them.
My own findings, the interviews I had, the meetings I attended and the feelings that people expressed, showed me the complexity of it all. During my stay in De Okelaar I joined the residents in trying to find answers and tools for dealing with opposing opinions and decision making. Theory provided me some tools in the sense that it provided concepts and words to situate issues and reactions of people which enabled me to analyse them. The dynamics discussed in the theory triggered a sense of recognition and understanding of processes that before felt too complex and impossible to even come close to ‘solutions’. Again, I caught myself trying to demarcate processes. I tried to analyse them, understand them in such a way I could come up with an answer: “this is what they should do to try to overcome the complexity and problem of conflict”. In a way my essay became an attempt to solve a complex problem. The medium of text promised me that if I analyse sharply enough, if I connect theories in the right way, then, I will be able to describe how it really is. I guess this is what my supervisor meant with his feedback on my difference in attitude during my filmmaking which was more explorative open-ended and my writing in which I was mobilising models to get to conclusive answers. In my film, I mostly asked questions and expressed wonderments. This is part of a voice over I used to explore conflict in De Okelaar:
“Na vele gesprekken vernam ik dat enkele onenigheden nu eenmaal deel uitmaken van de plek en de groep, toch verbaasde ik me hierover, omdat ik ze niet echt zag. was het de aanwezigheid van mijn camera die in de weg stond tussen mij en spanningen, of, vroeg ik me af, werd conflict misschien verinnerlijk en naar binnen geprojecteerd, waardoor ik ze niet meteen zag”
[“After many conversations, I learned that some disagreements are part of the place and the group, yet I was surprised about this, because I didn't really see them. Was it the presence of my camera that got in the way between me and tensions, or, I wondered, maybe conflict was internalised and projected inward, so I didn't see them right away”] Looking back on my writing, I felt the need to ‘explain’ rather than explore things in written word. Was this maybe an intellectual catch-up after making a personal, exploring film, or,
did I really gain insight through this way of analyzing? The question remains how all of this then relates to my film.
In the last part of my essay, I did attempt to link the theory with my findings. I tried to connect things that were said during interviews with the theories I read and wrote about. But most importantly, I was looking for a way to place the decision-making process of De Okelaar in the consensus versus agonism debate. I wanted to show where I thought De Okelaar was situated, what they did wrong and right, and what they could do to solve their problems. In my attempt to do so, I kept losing the storyline of my argument. Mostly because I kept bumping against the wall that divided clear and abstract concepts from the complexity and dynamic character of real life. It felt wrong to write down statements that were pulled out of a complex context I knew was underlying it and placed in a static theory. This is how I tried to make the connection:
6. Reflecting on linking theory to field
“The possibilities of agonism in consensus seeking
Having laid out both sides of the discussion, I would like to return to De Okelaar and explore what this could mean in practice. Considering the dissatisfaction of residents about the current decision-making process, I wonder if their approach to consensus decision-making lacks certain crucial aspects to achieve successful consensus or whether consensus in itself is an idealistic goal that is impossible to reach following the agonist’s train of thought.
Conditions for productive dialogue
In order to come to productive dialogue, Gladu (2020) found in her research on Canadian cohousing communities that practice and commitment were crucial aspects of the process. In her study she saw that disagreement could be explored and acted upon when it emerges in the pursuit of consensus. This pursuit meant spending a lot of time and energy in dialogical processes, an effort only made by people who consciously committed to engage with one another as a core aim of the organization.
Central to this, are the creation of dialogic spaces where dialogue can take place outside of official decision-making meetings and the development of communication skills. Practice is important since for many individuals, especially those who are used to think and work instrumentally, listening and facilitation don’t come naturally. The process of consensus-seeking pushes people together to address differences. So, if someone blocks a proposal, ideally a process of reconsideration, revision and improvement of the proposal starts. This process could have the effect of reducing the number of blocks to only those issues where a person feels strongly enough about to embark on a dialogical collaborative journey which takes time and energy. During the fieldwork my respondents expressed a similar approach, asking themselves constantly: “is this issue important enough for me to make a case out of it?”
In many cohousing communities, residents chose to seek additional training in
communication and facilitation or chose to hire external experts on the matter to facilitate
the process. Non-Violent Communication (NVC) is popular among cohousing community governing models (Gladu, 2020). This approach encourages people to take responsibility for their own words and actions, including their feelings. Secondly, NVC as well as other
forms of communication techniques, encourage people to move towards understanding feelings and needs instead of engaging in a more combative approach to conflict, debating over notions of ‘right and wrong’. Emphasis is put on learning to take on a more reflexive mindset.
Recalling common ground seemed to be an effective tool as well to deal with conflicts, as it reframes or resets a discussion within the wider interests of the community, referring to an idealized we-perspective (Finlayson, 2005). In the context of De Okelaar cohousing, the three pillars serve as a shared vision where people can return to in a productive manner. Especially the spiritual pillar was referred to many times as a means to remember the connecting, consensus seeking aim of the cohousing. So, when residents are struggling with one another they can be reminded of the values they once agreed and committed to and can compare their own position to them now.
Consensus in De Okelaar
Based on Gladu’s research (2020), the above-mentioned conditions were crucial in order to reach productive dialogue and consensus for that matter. In the case of De Okelaar, I noticed that these are aspects that were underdeveloped or non-existent which could be responsible for the difficulties residents experience with the consensus model.
First of all, some actively involved residents were strong believers of the consensus model but that was not the case for every resident. This resulted in an atmosphere where not everyone engaged in dialogue or was ready to engage in conflict in a dialogical matter with the same commitment as proposed by the consensus model. Moreover, there have been attempts in De Okelaar to create dialogic spaces like ‘round tables’ where residents were invited to share feelings and thoughts outside the business meetings in a safe space. However, during my stay these activities were not taking place anymore. There was incentive to organize them again but I did not have the chance to attend one. During the interviews, the faculty of ‘listening’ was mentioned many times “as something that still needs a lot of practice in De Okelaar”.
Secondly, De Okelaar did organise a workshop one year before my fieldwork took place, where an external facilitator was invited to teach the methods of ‘Deep Democracy’ based on the Lewis model (Kramer, 2014). This workshop provided the community tools to organise the meetings differently and to implement new ways of listening. This being said, one of the cofounders of the community is a professional communication facilitator and has worked around communication techniques with the group in the past. Other than that, residents of De Okelaar were not trained or facilitated in their communication skills on a long-term basis. As Gladu (2020) mentioned in her study, “the foundational work of communication training and practice undertaken by members in these communities set up the conditions for success in dealing with difficult events is an important mechanism that seems to be missing in the literature” (Gladu, 2020, p78). If we are to follow Gladu’s conclusions on successful deliberation within cohousing’s, the lack of development of these aspects could be responsible for the dissatisfaction of residents on the decision-making process in De Okelaar. However, this should be further explored through implementation of these conditions and an evaluation over time where more practice and experience has taken place.
The last aspect, recalling common ground can be seen in how residents referred
to the three pillars in De Okelaar, especially the spiritual pillar. Despite the challenges of the consensus seeking process in De Okelaar, residents are still trying to find ways to make the decision-making process work horizontally.
Characteristic of cohousing communities and its difference with other forms of intentional communities is its balancing act between individual freedom and the group. In cohousing communities, emphasis is put on individual freedom and space, which can be seen in the way the building and private units are organised as well in the decision-making process that fosters individual self-awareness rather than group debate. As Sullivan (2016) found in her study on a co-housing community, co-housers seek to reestablish the centrality of the community, but they are bound together by distinctly individualistic pursuits.
Characteristic to the consensus process is that every member gives input and expresses his or her concerns (Sullivan, 2016). However, individual input must reflect group values, and as mentioned before, members should distinguish between personal objections and objections based on agreed principles. As Sullivan (2016, p. 615) describes in her study, the group’s process for reaching consensus and distinguishing ‘personal’ and ‘principled’ objections was imagined in surprisingly individualistic terms. Consensus seeking is generally seen as a community building practice, however residents of cohousing communities described it as a highly personal process. This paradoxical nature inevitably leads to more conflict since the community actively provides space for different opinions to occur.
Working within a group toward consensus requires residents to analyze and understand themselves and their reactions further. In other words, commitment to engage in productive dialogue as a group goes hand in hand with commitment to reflect on the self. This self-reflective attitude was many times referred to as part of the spiritual pillar. As one of the cofounders of the Okelaar explains:
“The spiritual pillar at its best is the way you try to deal with your conflicts in a spiritual way”. Mia
The spiritual pillar in de Okelaar is not referring to an institutionalised religion but is left open to be interpreted individually. Here spirituality is interpreted as a subjective experience, leaving those involved free to create their own religion (Heelas and Woodhead, 2005). It is often characterized by reflection and introspection. This private form of spirituality involves a strong emphasis on the self and reflecting on it, to cope with life’s problems (Zondag, 2013).
Personal development plays an important role in this ‘self-religion’. Many scholars have already inquired into the relation between individualism and religion (Bellah et al., 1985; Taylor, 2002; Guignon, 2008), however what I find interesting is how this self-reflective spirituality reflects on or is reflected in the consensus seeking model to deal with conflict.
Bellah et al. (1985) identified expressive individualism based on studying Northern American culture. Expressive individualism emphasizes the existence of a unique core of feeling in each person that must be expressed if individuality is to be realised (Zondag, 2013). In other words, expressing one’s feelings is an important feature, which can be seen as well in the consensus seeking process. In this context there is a focus on individual self-esteem, self-actualization and self-acceptance above all other values (Bellah et al, 1985). Where once values of altruism and sacrifice ruled the social landscape, now "the obligation to sacrifice oneself for another is replaced by the duty to respect the other person's separateness, to recognize the other's needs for growth and change, and to give to the other in return for what one receives” (Swidler, 1980).
Back to the cohousing this notion translates itself into the idea that working in the interest of the community requires an individual process of self-reflection. Even the group’s most communal process is then based on individualistic logic (Sullivan, 2016). In this way, the efficacy of the consensus process was based more on individual self-awareness than hardy group debate and collaborative thinking. This self-self-awareness can foster a reflexive mindset supporting deliberative consensus through productive dialogue and additionally, provides a framework to interpret conflicts as opportunities of personal growth.
According to Gladu (2020) you could say that deliberative practices do not exclude agonistic outcomes. The question then remains, whether consensus and agreement are not reached because of the lack of commitment, practice and skills among residents or whether consensus is an idealistic unreachable goal.
The possibility of agonism in De Okelaar
In order to get a better understanding of the discontentment that some residents feel about the deliberative consensus model in De Okelaar I would like to delve deeper into the possibilities of agonism. Dealing with conflict in a constructive way helps not only the organization but it can also help people within the organization, as people who resolve conflicts openly and constructively feel more connected.
All of the previous described aspects for productive consensus seeking dialogue ask for a strong engagement and intention of individuals to work. They require a certain capacity of thinking, reflecting, reasoning and expressing of people. De Okelaar has chosen to include all members of society, also individuals who have no background in organizational settings or education for that matter. In a way, by choosing to form the community in this way, De Okelaar made room for a more realistic pluralism within the group comparable to society. In order to reach productive dialogue and even consensus, a certain degree (and style) of dialogical skills is expected from everyone. I wonder if this condition is in itself excluding, since not everyone has had the same background in learning a certain style in communication that is required for dialogue. This could result in that you may lose people in the process, since not everyone ‘dialogues’ in the same way.
Determining whether an issue is important or negligible in function of the group is something that requires practice. In de Okelaar there is a strong commitment to form a group, but the commitment to reach consensus through dialogue varies among residents, since not everyone believes in this method as being an honest and democratic way of making decisions.
“They call it consensus. You say something and the majority says yes, there are some who say they don’t like it at all, then there comes talking, talking, talking, to convince you either way, and eventually you say, okay, I don’t agree but if the majority says so, it is okay for me. [...] I think voting is fantastic, because then you can see who is the majority and who is the minority, and you just accept the majority, that’s how it is. And at another time you will have something where you are in the majority and others have to accept. I think that is perfect, but consensus… I think it’s a little hypocrite.” Rikke
I wonder whether the lack of consensus about the consensus model is what blocks the decision-making model in De Okelaar. This corresponds to the agonistic theory that all can agree on the ethico-political values but disagree on the implementation of it, or in
Mouffe’s words, a conflictual consensus is missing where all residents can agree on the procedure in which deliberation takes place. Residents who expressed dissatisfaction mentioned how after not feeling heard they just give up trying to engage in dialogue. They do not agree with the hegemonic implementation of the democratic values and don’t feel that they have a say in how to challenge it.
Secondly, agonism emphasizes the existence of power relations and the importance of challenging them. Important in this democratic practice is treating your adversary as legitimate and not as someone to convince or get rid of. One year ago, De Okelaar took some steps approaching a more agonistic perspective by organizing workshops on Deep Democracy. This method aims at listening to the minority, with the underlying assumption that the minority is important for the dynamic of the group. Instead of ‘most votes count’, the group actively turns toward the voice of the minority and tries to integrate their ideas in the decision-making process. This is put into practice by asking two ‘golden questions’ after everyone seems to have agreed on a matter: Is there anyone who thinks differently on the issue? (actively looking for the voice of the minority) And secondly, are there more people feeling this way? (strengthening the voice of the minority).
Characteristic of Deep Democracy is the belief that there are no personalities, only temporary roles within a group. Every role is taken by someone. In order to maintain a healthy group dynamic, the roles should rotate between individuals. This means that for different meetings, different people will take on the role of leader for example. By doing so, one actively tries to challenge power relations. Within this structure it is important every single person feels heard and has to have the possibility to share her or his concerns. The majority has the responsibility to take the minority’s concerns into the decision. Conflict and dialogue are thus central to this method and are actively sought. However, this results in slowing down the process of taking action and translating decisions into practice.
“[Deep Democracy]… It is nice, but it asks a whole different way of meeting, listening to each other and verbalizing your opinion. It asks a lot of competence. It is not just, okay, this is the plan, let’s do this and that’s it. I still don’t dare to say that we live according to Deep Democracy, because there are still a lot of people who don’t understand it completely [...], and because during meetings we still don’t listen to the minority, we still tend to silence people with a divergent opinion, often because these are the people who are not very good in verbalizing their opinion, who then encounter opposition, also from me, because, well, if you act like this during a meeting, I’m not going to listen … And of course, you have to think, there is something beneath that, but well, then you are being the therapist and … (sighs), that becomes tiring.” Elise
This quote shows that the implementation of Deep Democracy is still a work in progress and therefore needs more investigation on its effects. Residents who were dissatisfied with the consensus decision-making process (the ones who didn’t feel heard by the majority) were enthusiastic about the Deep Democracy model, however after a year they feel the group has slowly shifted back to the consensus model (the hegemonic model) and stopped working with the Deep Democracy tools provided by the facilitators. When asking residents if things have changed after the workshop, they replied that generally people are more conscious and that there is a change but it still needs a lot of time to really reap the benefits.
