The Individual and the Group, a Play in Three Acts

One of the interesting ways to think about intentional communities is that it's a purposeful choice to move toward "we" on the I-we spectrum. What I mean is that you can look at how people behave and sort actions into those which are taken with intent to maximize the benefit to the individual, and contrast it with those which are taken with intent to maximize the benefit to the public, or the group.

Where we stand on that spectrum is significant for a handful of reasons.

I. Are We an Island or Not?
First, you can make a good case for there never having been a time in human history where the dominant culture was located more toward the "I" end of that spectrum than we are in mainstream US culture today. It's all about what's best for the individual. Think John Wayne. Think Ayn Rand. The essential concept is that society will do best if individuals focus on their own welfare above all else. If individuals thrive, then the society will necessarily follow.

It hasn't always been that way. Almost four centuries ago, Englishman John Donne penned this well-known poem:

No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; 
It tolls for thee. 
                        

 —John Donne (1624)

While those lines are timeless, it's application has since eroded. Consider this contemporary counterpoint:

A winter's day
In a deep and dark
December
I am alone
Gazing from my window to the streets below
On a freshly fallen silent shroud of snow
I am a rock
I am an island

I've built walls
A fortress deep and mighty
That none may penetrate
I have no need of friendship, friendship causes pain
It's laughter and it's loving I disdain
I am a rock
I am an island

Don't talk of love
But I've heard the words before
It's sleeping in my memory
I won't disturb the slumber of feelings that have died
If I never loved I never would have cried
I am a rock
I am an island

I have my books
And my poetry to protect me
I am shielded in my armor
Hiding in my room, safe within my womb
I touch no one and no one touches me
I am a rock
I am an island

And a rock feels no pain
And an island never cries

—Paul Simon (1966)

While there's a question how much Simon was trying to capture the ethos of the times versus how much he was writing cynically (or perhaps he was doing both), it's clear that we've ridden the horse of capitalism right up to the very gates of hell, and we're by no means done with the ride. Republicans have their hands on the reins and we have a President who's gleefully writing executive orders eviscerating a spate of regulations aimed at protecting the public good. Herbert Hoover's philosophy of rugged individualism lives on.

It's my belief that humans, as a species, are hard-wired to be herd animals. We crave each other's company and don't do well in isolation. Thus, it doesn't surprise me that there's a deep hunger for community; for a sense of belonging beyond one's immediate blood family. It's a natural response to the alienation that surfaces in the ill-fitting American dream of a house in the burbs where neighbors barely know one another.

That said, knowing that it's good for us does not mean that we know how to do it—live in close approximation with others without the structure of a caste system or Father-Knows-Best paternalism to maintain social order. We want the freedom of individual choice, and at the same time a solid connection with the herd. It's no minor feat figuring out how to thread that needle.

With rare exceptions, we have not been raised with cooperative skills. Worse, most folks who attempt cooperative living do not go into the experiment understanding why that's important. Commonly, they just get frustrated that it isn't easier. (Why is there this gap between what I intend and what I achieve?)

II. What's Private and What's Public?
The fact the people living in intentional communities have moved more toward the "we" end of the spectrum, does not mean they've moved all the way over. There is still a plethora of decisions that individuals or households make that are not considered group business.

That said, there is nuance around how far the line has been shifted, and it's not likely that everyone will see it the same way. If the group doesn't explore this ahead of time (to be fair, it's hard to gin up enthusiasm for discussing hypothetical awkwardness—why borrow trouble?) those differences are not apt to be illuminated until you're in a situation where they apply. The interesting case is when an individual makes a choice that no one proposes should be handled at the group level, yet that decision has obvious impact on the group. Now what? 

For the most part this is uncharted water. As a backdrop for my thinking about how to proceed, I want to pause to introduce two important concepts:

A. Intentional Communities as Modern Villages
Over 15 years ago I happened upon a copy of Sobonfu Somé's The Spirit of Intimacy, Ancient Teachings in the Ways of Relationships (2000), in which she describes how intimate couples relate to the group in traditional West African villages, which is where she was raised. While the village does not direct villagers in choices of intimacy, there is nonetheless an acknowledged two-way relationship between the couple and the village, where each has a responsibility to aid and sustain the other. This is formally acknowledged in marriage vows, and extends to raising children.

By substituting intentional community for village, it gave me insight into a constructive, proactive role for groups in situations where the whole is significantly impacted to the private actions of individual members. Apparently, in West African villages there is broad recognition that "we're all in this together." In consequence, there's an understanding that if the group is impacted by the choices of individuals then there needs to be an opportunity for the village (as represented by the elders in village culture) to have a say in how things move forward.

This is an important difference from the hands-off approach that is generally taken in mainstream culture. Unless you break a law, individuals are not expected to make themselves available to discuss the wider consequences of private decisions. They can simply say, "It's none of your business" and that's expected to be honored.

B. In Cooperative Culture Groups Get Together to Solve Problems and to Enhance Relationships
In the mainstream, meetings are essentially viewed as a way to share information and ideas, on the road to resolving issues and concerns. However, in cooperative culture (in contrast with competitive culture) how you accomplish things matters as much as what you accomplish. In cooperative culture there are two primary meeting objectives: 1) clearing up confusion, and figuring out how best to respond to emerging issues; and 2) sustaining and improving relationships among members.

These two objectives are not necessarily evenly weighted (though they may be); sometimes one of them is more to the fore, and others times it's the reverse. The significance of this is that it can be a revelation to some that you'd call a meeting expressly to attend to relationships. That is, the meeting may have no decision-making component at all, yet still be potent and appropriate.

With these two concepts in hand, let's return to the question of how to respond to a private decision that has blow back in the group. What's called for, I believe, is a group session designed to clear the air. Once it's established that there are nontrivial reverberations in the group, you have to accept that there is no stopping people from discussing it in pairs and small clusters (think parking lot conversations); the question is whether you also want to have a plenary discussion. As far as I'm concerned you have to. Here's why:

o  Getting on top of gossip and rumors
If you don't create an chance to look at this with everyone in the same room, information will be unevenly shared; some of it is bound to be incomplete, some of it is likely to be distorted, and some may be just plain wrong. It can be a nightmare trying to get all the worms back in the can. You pretty much need a plenary to get everyone on the same page.

o  You cannot repair damage until you know what it is
The biggest danger in these situations is that relationships are strained. To be more precise, when focusing on reactivity, no one's worried about unbridled joy—we're talking about feelings of alienation, such as fear, confusion, disgust, anger, or even outrage.

To address this well requires a certain sequence—one that's most effectively done live (you can't mail it in). Feelings must be fully expressed, they must be acknowledged (to the satisfaction of the speaker), and there must be a heartfelt, connecting response. Note that this does not necessarily require the individual to agree that they've done something wrong, or to offer an apology, though those may be appropriate.

o  Safety in numbers
When voicing negative reactions, many of us find it challenging to do so cleanly and completely (who do you know, after all, who learned this growing up?). While it may not make it easier to hear, sharing in the whole group can often make it easier for people to be courageous about speaking up.

Also, it is typically easier to line up skilled facilitation (either from within the group, or perhaps by bringing in someone from outside) for a plenary, the better to establish and maintain a constructive container for such delicate work. A good facilitator will make it easier for all parties to both speak and be heard.

To get these results, it's imperative that the meeting be set up properly. It is not about judging others, assigning blame, determining objective truth (uncovering what really happened), or making decisions; it's about sharing information, understanding impact, and repairing relationships.

III. Terraforming the Culture of Inclusivity
The stakes here are rather high. Not because that many people will ever live in intentional community, but because communities are research and development centers for sustainable culture. 

In this era of disintegrating civility and the normalization of alienation politics, many of us are near desperation in yearning for a way forward that all can embrace. I can see no hope in relying on additional doses of what got us to this pass, with one side trying to pound their majority down the throats of those who lost the last election. We need a sea change—an approach that builds on what's being learned in the crucible of intentional community living about how to solve problems and attend to relationships at the same time.

This is not about homogenization, making nice, or pretending that everyone thinks the same way. Rather, it's about moving ahead only after all sides have been heard and everyone's on the bus. It's understanding at a visceral level that we've got to start thinking more about "we" and not so much about "I," and what it takes to get there.

Balancing Transparency and Discretion, Part II

Earlier in the week I received this compelling email from a friend:

I'm thinking of proposing a policy at our democratic free school where charges of misconduct will be handled at the plenary level—in a meeting of the entire school. (I'm writing you because I often look to intentional communities instead of other alternative schools for inspiration about good process, because other schools don't use consensus like we do, and don't have as high a degree of student involvement.)

Some people in the school community have concerns about my proposal because they believe that not every matter of safety should go to the whole school for consideration. Their main concern is in dramatic incidents like sexual or physical assault, where they are worried that a kid may feel afraid to go in front of the everyone to talk about what happened. What would you recommend?  

A counter-proposal is for a small conflict resolution group to make the decision, or to make a recommendation to the plenary, keeping information about the victim confidential. My hesitation with this approach is that we have used a committee for conflict resolution in the past and, in my opinion, it overstepped its authority and made big decisions without disclosing the details to the community.

What a good question! It's an attempt to balance due process (fairness) with confidentiality and the protection of both: a) the victim, from the potential embarrassment of having their experience examined in a public setting; and b) the accused, from the possibility of having their name smeared before it’s been determined if they’ve done anything wrong. In essence, this is another version of a topic I first wrote about July 31, 2014: Balancing Transparency and Discretion. It also touches on the dynamic tension between public and private: at what point is it the group's business to know about a private matter?

I think the priorities here are:

1. Having the lowest possible barriers to issues related to the group coming out, so that wrongs can be addressed and the innocent protected. You don't want: a) murky standards of accountability to undermine the group's resolve to address issues; nor b) your willingness to examine issues to be daunted by the prospect of volatility in the exploration.

2. Proceeding in a way that protects both authenticity and compassion. Thus, you want relevant information to be shared as widely as seems appropriate (trust is directly related to the dissemination of accurate information), yet at the same time you want to proceed in a way that seems least threatening and most accessible for the principal players.

Taken all together, I think what works best in this regard is a carefully selected Ministry Committee (the name is a traditional one in Quaker circles, referring to the task of laboring with members in tension with each other or with the group, and does not relate the relationship between individual and spirit). I like this approach because it tends to be less overwhelming than the plenary (supporting the concern raised by those uneasy with my friend's proposal), and because the committee members can be selected carefully to highlight the qualities wanted in this committee—which will hopefully translate into their being able to proceed more sensitively and sagaciously than the plenary.

Their mandate would be to hear and oversee the handling of complaints about member conduct that are not resolvable directly or informally.

In pursuit of its work, the committee would keep several things in mind:

A. Their first task will be to determine if the accusation places the school at risk such that the civil authorities need to be called in, or the rest of the school needs to be apprised immediately because of overriding concerns for endangerment to life or property.
 
B. If the danger or urgency of the accusation does not justify informing the whole school at the outset (Point A), then, at the conclusion of the investigation, the committee will discuss with the accused and the accuser what can be shared with the whole school, where the committee will try to secure permission to disseminate an even-handed summary of what happened as broadly as possible within the school community. 

C. Outside of what is agreed to be shared with the whole school or with the proper civil authorities (under Points A & B above), the committee is expected to not discuss details of the incident or its investigation with anyone outside the committee. This agreement notwithstanding, the committee may deem it prudent to keep sealed records of its investigations, against the possibility of future incidents of a similar nature, or involving the same players.
 
D. If Point A does not obtain, then the committee will conduct its investigation is such a way that is most comfortable for both the accuser and the accused, regarding matters of setting, timing, and support. (Note that the accuser and accused may have very different preferences in this regard, requiring delicate negotiations to resolve.)

E. If the committee recommends that punitive or behavior-limiting consequences are appropriate, then these will be discussed with the school’s governing board and ratified or adjusted as appropriate before they are implemented. That is, the committee is not licensed to impose sanctions on their own without review. This caveat accomplishes two things: 1) defanging the committee for those fearing its wrath; and 2) curtailing concerns about a runaway committee that exceeds it authority.

Inequalities in Feminist Culture

For groups that embrace cooperative leadership—where there is reliance on the wisdom of the whole, instead of that of a single person or council of elders—the ideal is feminist culture, by which I mean a commitment to gender equality and a basic belief that all humans have the same inherent worth regardless of productivity, skills, or sagacity, and that everyone should have a voice in decisions affecting them.

That said, it is demonstrably not true that everyone has the same talent or proficiency at accomplishing what the group needs to maintain its health or to pursue its mission. In short, there is a sense in which everyone is equal… and a sense in which everyone isn't. It gets confusing.

While it's all well an good to strive for a level playing field, not everyone's interested in doing the work to close the gaps between where they are and those ahead of them, and there are some delicate questions around how much of the group's resources should go toward eliminating inequalities—not the least of which is because you'll never get there. 

Please don't misunderstand me. I think investing in capacity building and personal growth are excellent ideas. I'm only saying that there are too many ways in which people are different and no amount of ideological purity or tour de force training will result in a membership comprised of interchangeable parts. While that observation is not very profound, my experience has been that cooperative groups rarely act as if they fully understand that.

Sure, groups get it that all members are not competent auto mechanics, crackerjack facilitators, or gourmet chefs. (For that matter not everyone is that wonderful at scrubbing floors or balancing a checkbook, either.) And there are some distinctions between members that are relatively easy to acknowledge and discus openly:
o  Endurance
o  Size
o  Strength
o  Discretionary Time
o  Education & Training
o  Credentials

Other distinctions, however, are a bit trickier. All the following topics could be: a) straight forward to acknowledge; b) somewhat obscure; or c) controversial to interpret:
o  Physical Health
o  Wealth
o  Experience
o  Skill
o  Privilege

Last, there is there are subjects that members rarely discuss openly, and can even feel offended that you asked about:
o  Mental Health
o  Power 
o  Counseling History
o  Family Challenges
o  Financial Challenges
o  Addictions
o  Personal History with Abuse

Notice that there is no particular correlation between the tenderness of the topic and the likelihood that it will be a factor in group dynamics. My main point in this essay is that there are a number of important ways in which people are reliably different, yet most cooperative groups do not have a clear sense of how to explore these differences, or even an agreement that they should be discussed at all. They just hold their breath and hope for the best.

It's crippling to be actively working toward a goal of equality among members when there are significant differences that are off limits. If you can't discuss them, how will you determine how large they are (or even how large the range of opinions is about the size of the gap), what those differences mean, or what you want to do about them (if anything)?

To be sure, these taboo topics are subjects we've been conditioned to consider private—things we share only with intimate friends and partners. Yet they still impact the group, and if you're serious about working sensitively with differences, then you need to be able to develop a sense of what constitutes healthy inequalities and what are differences that erode the group's cohesion and effectiveness. 

The challenge is whether you have the awareness, courage, and maturity to be able to explore assessments of inequalities wherever they occur relative to group function. I'm not saying that there is a "right" way to handle differences; I'm saying that whistling in the dark and pretending that they don't exist doesn't work.

The Threshold Committee

One of the more intriguing (and potentially delicate) dynamics that cooperative groups need to navigate is determining when the personal choices of members move from strictly being in the private realm to becoming the legitimate subject of a group conversation—not necessarily because anyone thinks the individual(s) needed to have secured group sanction before acting, but because the impact is demonstrably affecting the group and it's appropriate to have a conversation about the impact on the whole.

The trick is how to be authentic and compassionate without violating the boundaries of privacy. This calculus is made even more challenging when the individuals are skittish about sharing in the group, and the prospect of such an examination comes across as an inquisition rather than an inquiry.

Thinking about this recently, it occurred to me that some groups may benefit substantially from putting in place a subgroup whose sole job it would be to figure out whether and how to have such conversations. The committee's authorization might look like this:

Threshold Committee Mandate
o Comprised of three members carefully selected for the following qualities:
—balanced representation (to the extent possible everyone in the group should have at least one person on the committee that they can readily approach)
—discretion (able to hear sensitive things and not repeat them without express permission)
—compatibility with each other (willing to work together)
—high communication skills
—process savvy (understand what due process means and how to apply it with sensitivity and diligence on a case-by-case basis)
—moxie to face tough issues

o Be available to work with requests from anyone in the group about an issue involving a person's behavior such that the complainant feels it's having a deleterious effect on the group (as opposed to just them).

o Once contacted, the committee will conduct a discrete inquiry into the story, to ascertain what's happened, and people's reactions to that. In the end, they'll make a determination about whether the impact has reach the point where a group conversation is appropriate. The factors that the committee will weigh might include the following:
—how many people seem concerned about what's happened (or is happening) and want to know how it's affecting others?
—how great is the distress?
—what is the risk to the group (legal, cost in terms of group energy, cost in terms of resources, group harmony)?
—how bad is the gossip around this (how widely is this dynamic being discussed, what is the distortion level of the information, what damage is occurring to relationships and trust)?
—how mortifying is it to the protagonists that this be discussed in the group (you want conversations to be constructive, not traumatizing)?
—how does this fit in (or not) with the group's clarity about how much members want to be in each others lives?

o This committee will have the authority to call a group meeting for the purpose of seeing to it that the stories are told and that there be an opportunity for everyone to let others know what they want to be heard. This does not mean that anyone needs to do something in response to what is said—that may or may not happen.

o If the committee finds that a plenary is appropriate, they will labor with the key players about what format might be the most constructive for this sharing of information and responses, accommodating everyone as far as possible. However, in the end, the committee may call a plenary even over one or more key player's objections if they feel the need is sufficiently compelling.

o The committee will determine the most appropriate way to set up the opportunity for sharing. The committee cannot compel anyone to attend such a meeting, nor can it impose sanctions on anyone.

o The committee will have a budget for the purpose of bringing in outside help if the committee believes there isn't sufficient capacity or neutrality in the group to self-facilitate the sharing.

The inspiration for the Threshold Committee surfaced after I witnessed a group agonize over when and how to create a forum for clearing the air about tough stuff that was swirling around as fallout from private choices. When the group is paralyzed about whether to proceed with a collective conversation, it tends not to happen and the only outlets remaining are the uneven gleanings from water cooler gossip and what can be cobbled together through one-on-one airings.

Can't we do better than that?

The Relationship of Relationships to the Group

Recently I was asked to facilitate a sharing circle for a group where there had been a shift in an intimate relationship among members. The change—an old partner out and a new partner in— naturally spurred a complex set of reactions among the other members and the group was undecided about whether to talk about it as a group, and if so, how. That's where I was asked to help.

On the one hand, the precipitating events were intimate decisions that the group clearly recognized as outside the group's purview. That is, no one was trying to make the case that the individuals needed any kind of group sanction to proceed. At the same time, it was equally clear that the shift was demonstrably affecting the group. In addition to the two people who were starting a relationship, there was a break-up of a longstanding relationship that resulted in a long-term member exiting the community. So joy and grief were commingled in a volatile emotional stew and it was anything but simple figuring out how to proceed with caring and authenticity.

To what extent is the group a stakeholder in this dynamic? To what extent is it helpful to create a group level forum to explore this tender territory? This is a great topic. Shifts in intimate relationships are not rare and groups often stumble over this dynamic, in part because groups seldom address how they want to handle it ahead of being in the tender situation that exposes the ambiguity.

In this particular incident, the pathway was further clouded by one member of the emerging couple wanting the chance to talk in the whole group, while the other partner dreaded it. The latter has never been comfortable sharing in groups, yet was willing to talk with anyone one on one. Why, this person wondered, couldn't that be enough?

While much might have been accomplished through one-on-one sharing, not everyone feels comfortable doing that when they're upset, and there is considerable power in everyone hearing from everyone else all at once. Not only does this cut down on speculation and gossip about what's happening and how people are responding, it gives depth to each person's knowledge of other members, and enhances the trust that you can build as a consequence of weathering a complex dynamic together.

By making the choice to create an intentional community, the group had made an explicit choice that members would be more in each other's lives than is the case in typical neighborhoods. That is, they purposefully chose to be closer with one another. That said, there was still substantial ambiguity about how close they wanted that to be, and the request to have a group conversation about how the group was impacted by intimate events begged that question. While some members definitely wanted this opportunity, others thought it was inappropriate and was inserting the community too far into member's private lives. Nonetheless, the group proceeded, and most members, to their credit, were willing to give it a try, with even some of the skeptical attending (for which I was thankful and impressed).

The sharing circle was an explicit attempt to help the new couple in their continuing relationships with others in the community—which everyone wanted to proceed in a healthy, authentic way—yet we established at the outset that no one was intending this session to encourage people to take sides between the new couple and the exiting member. In fact, one of the clearest benefits of the session was our ability to successfully establish that no one was asking anyone to choose between them, so that support extend to any of the principals should not be construed as an implied withdrawal of support for any other principal. Whew!

In this instance, the group did a terrific job of speaking from their hearts and listening closely to each other. This was all the more impressive in that a number of people had hard things to say.

Here is some of what came out:
o Anger that one member would make themselves available for a new relationship before the old one was dissolved. Some thought this violated a standard of morality, even though it was recognized that was a personal position and not something that the group took a stand on (though some groups do, but this one did not).

o Lament that the group was not able to find a way to better help the struggling couple work through their issues, with the hope that either they'd come through it with their relationship intact, or that it was possible for the old couple to separate without the group losing a valued member.
o Fear in the new couple that others were holding them in judgment and that they might be shunned.

o Anger that people might have been used by the new couple to create opportunities for them to get together—that the third party was asked to hang out not because the couple wanted to spend time with them, but so that their presence could make it "safer" for the new couple to spend time together without arousing suspicion.

o Upset that people were hearing "dirty laundry" about the old couple that no one was comfortable with, or knew how to respond to.

o Confusion about whether it was appropriate to express happiness for the new couple without coming across as callous and uncaring for the person losing their partner.

o Upset that the group was intruding on private matters, and that the conversation might lead to traumatization and polarization that would preclude or at least delay healing.

o Fear among single people in the group that their spending time with married members might be misconstrued as an attempt to seduce other people's partners.

o Relief that the group cared enough about each other—and the whole—to make this attempt to discuss what was going on, without judging one another for their individual reactions.

o Thankfulness that there was finally an opportunity to say openly how difficult it had been to try to befriend all parties and have no one to share that with because of an overriding commitment to confidentiality (the underlying relationship struggles had been going on for more than a year).

One of the most powerful things that emerged in the sharing was people witnessing difficult things from their past that strongly influenced how they saw this development, which included their personal stories around intimacy and the boundaries they have developed about what is private and what is suitable to be shared with others. When revealed, it made it much easier for others to understand their perspective. In the absence of such knowledge, we tend to assume that others have similar life experiences to ours, and this can considerably muddy the waters when trying to make sense of why someone reacts as they do. Often, these things don't emerge until such tender moments occur and people are given an unexpected safe forum to share their histories.

Note the power of the whole group hearing about all of this in one go, rather than trying to piece it together from a series of one-on-one conversations. None of what I've written here is meant to criticize one-on-one sharing—I'm all for it. I'm only trying to make the case why sharing in the group offers unique benefits. Done well (which is not a slam dunk, yet is demonstrably possible), it undercuts hearsay, establishes a common basis for moving forward, enhances trust, and accelerates healing.

While no one wants people to suffer and go through deep hurt, such things inevitably occur. I'm excited when groups are willing to make the attempt to trust their ability to help each other through hard times by being real and vulnerable with one another, trusting in our basic humanity and desire to piece together our myriad and confused responses into a tapestry of authenticity and support when coping with crisis.
Relationships don't exist in a vacuum, and I think it works better when groups don't just look the other way and hope for the best. It gives me hope when communities are willing to extend themselves and recognize they can have a role in helping to create a healthy container in which relationships can manage struggle, and the individuals whose lives are affected can get support in finding their way to a constructive response. I'm proud to be a midwife of such moments.

As a group process consultant, this is as good as it gets.

And When the Music Stops...

One of the main reasons people are attracted to community living is because it's a nutrient rich environment that stimulates growth. Sometimes you get more than you were looking for.

I just got this heart-wrenching letter from a friend, writing about her community's struggle to navigate the vicissitudes of a recent intimacy shake-up (names have been changed to mask the identity of the group and the individuals):

Our neighbors, Peter & Arlene, have just split up because Peter is pursuing a relationship with another community member, Mary, whose husband died a while ago. Mary is pursuing a relationship with Peter right back, and the upshot of all this is that Peter & Arlene's marriage is over. Last weekend, many of us helped to move Arlene into a rental unit in another city. Now, we are left with Peter & Mary, and we're not sure how to handle it.

Most people in the community were very shocked when they learned the news about Peter & Mary, myself included. Peter & Arlene had been married for 29 years, and Arlene had made a big effort to support Mary after her husband died.

I am writing because I wonder what we—as a community—should do, if anything. There is a lot of anger toward Peter & Mary, though most folks are pleasant toward them at meals, meetings, and other social interactions.

What do you think?

This is tough. On the one hand, it is not community business who members take as lovers, providing we're talking about the actions of consenting adults. From what you've reported, it seems that this liaison is something that both Peter and Mary want, so you'll have to live with it.

Probably uncertain is the extent to which couples want or desire help from the community to support relationships in trouble (this was something that Ma'ikwe and I explicitly thought about and included in our marriage vows: both that our relationship had a responsibility to the communities in which we lived, and that we wanted the communities to be available to us in hard times to help us get through it). To be clear, I don't blame your community for not having tackled this—few communities do—I'm just pointing out the poignancy of the ambiguity when it might have made a difference. The idea here is that intimacy remains primarily a choice among individuals, yet the group may still be a stakeholder.

But enough of my soap box, whether the members have previously discussed this dynamic or not, the community is nonetheless affected by this relationship shift (among other things, you've lost Arlene as a member), and I think it's worthwhile to get that out in the open—not for the purpose of passing judgment on Peter & Mary's choices (that's not your business), but to talk about what's hard and to clear the air.

Included might be any or all of the following: a) grieving the loss of Arlene as a member; b) perhaps expressing fears about the stability of other marriages in the community; c) maybe hearing what Peter & Mary have gone through in making the decision to get together despite Peter & Arlene's 29-year-old marriage; d) possibly others voicing fears that Peter and/or Mary may next be interested in their partner.

The point here is that intimacy shifts definitely have an impact on the group dynamic (the camaraderie, the trust, the sense of stability) and that it will ultimately be much better for everyone if there is a carefully crafted opportunity for all parties to get their feelings out in the open—instead of keeping them in the dark, where they can fester. I suggest a sharing circle format, where people speak from their hearts, and where you are not expecting to entertain proposals or to make any agreements. The object here is to be real and to simply hear each other deeply. While it may be scary, I know you can do this.

Back in 1999, I lost one of my fellow founding members in a squeeze like this, where her long-term partner chose another woman member as a new lover and she couldn't stand to stick around. It hurt like hell. While I didn't expect anything to change as a result of my feelings, it helped me to be able to express my anguish in a group setting.

I'm guessing that the trickiest part may be getting Peter & Mary to agree to attend (they may fear that it may be an invitation to a necktie party). You may have to do a little work to convince them that the point is to cleanse the wound; not to rub salt in it.

Problems Are Just a Stone's Throw Away

I just got an email from a friend, who was in a quandry about how to handle an incident at her community. She wrote:

One night about a month ago, X was walking near the carports after dark and saw the silhouette of someone standing near a small rock pile next to the gardens, throwing rocks. She then heard a sound of something being hit but was too frightened to stop and find out what it was. A day or two later, it was discovered that a rock had gone through the rear window of the pickup truck that X shares with another neighbor couple. [X wasn't certain who the person was, so could not go and talk to him, but had a fair idea about who it might be from the little she had seen.]

X sent out an email to all describing the incident as most likely accidental and saying she would like to hear from the person who did the damage—in strictest confidentiality.

There was a plenary a few days later, and X had not heard from anyone about the damage. In the part of the plenary where short topics can be introduced, I brought up the incident and said that I thought the community should pay to replace the truck window as a matter of principle. (I don't think anyone understood this and it was hard for me to explain what I meant—something about the responsibility for something like this belongs to all of us.) My motivation had nothing to do with the actual expenditure as I am sure the three owners could easily afford whatever the deductible amounted to. The discussion in plenary was brief and took no particular direction. I did not want to say much, and X didn't either so I am not even sure if everyone understood that it was most likely a member of the community who did this.

Now, it is several weeks later (no one has come forward; the truck is repaired) and I asked the truck owners if it was OK with them if I bring this up as a general community issue. They all want to drop it since it is "a one-time thing." I think this would set a bad precedent—of sweeping uncomfortable things under the rug. I would like to see a general discussion of the implications for the community. I have given up on the idea of the community paying for the repair.

I am not interested in who did it or why, though I have an educated guess. My hunch is that the damage was accidental and that the person was "blowing off steam." He is probably suffering his embarrassment in silence.

If you have any thoughts about where this type of thing fits into community life and how it should be handled, I would love to hear them.

This is an interesting sequence, that can be usefully broken into two parts.

Part One: When Stories Don't Align
It's not at all uncommon that Person A thinks that Person B—both members of the same group—did something inappropriate but Person B does not own responsibility for it. Given the vagaries of the circumstances (including poorly lighting on the night that the windshield was cracked, complicating a positive identification), there are a large number of possible reasons for Person B's position:

o Person B really didn't do it (it was someone else, perhaps someone who wasn't a member of the community and thus never saw Person A's email request to come forward).
o Person B did throw stones but doesn't think they hit the windshield of the pickup, and thus are not culpable.
o Person B did it, and knows that they did it, but is too embarrassed to admit it publicly.
o Person B has admitted it privately to the truck owner(s) and has taken care of it outside the public arena, which Person A doesn't know about.
o Person B is upset with the owner of the pickup and thinks that they "deserved" to have a cracked windshield.

My essential point is that there are many possibilities, including innocence. One of the factors in this is that Person A, perhaps unwittingly, has raised the ante by bringing the matter into the public spotlight. If Person A's main concern was to get the windshield fixed by the person responsible and they thought that it was Person B, then I think the course of action that was most apt to have worked well was for Person A to have approached Person B directly and asked about it (it could go something like, "Hey Person B, I'd like to have a conversation with you about something that happened in the parking lot the other night and that may involve you, is this a good time?").

This particular incident generalizes to all situations where one member thinks another has acted inappropriately and the other person denies it—because a) they think that the behavior falls below the level of what's appropriate for group-level attention (the accuser is nitpicking and/or being a busybody); b) they don't agree that a bad thing has happened; b) they deny that they did the bad thing.

In these situations, it is often the best you can do to get agreement on whether the purported action is indeed inappropriate and whether it's significant enough to warrant group attention. This at least sets the table for how it can go differently if it happens again (which may go a long way toward eliminating the behavior, even if there's no agreement about how to handle the precipitating event).

Part Two: The Vague Boundary Between Public & Private
The other major challenge of group living that this incident illuminates has to do with the boundary between personal and group responsibility. In particular, you tried to make the case that anomalous damage to private possessions stored in common spaces should be borne by the group rather than the owner. (Note that this is different than damage incurred while a privately owned possession is being used for a group purpose, in which case I think the group would likely support the notion that the group cover the repair.)

I think groups can go either way on this. It sounds like your community was not persuaded by your line of argument, but I don't think they were obliged to. Assuming everyone understood what was being asked (you seem unsure whether the lack of enthusiasm in support of your proposal was due to unclarity about what was being asked, or to disagreement with the principle that you wanted to establish), this may simply be something about which you and the rest of the group are not in agreement.

In most groups there tends to be considerable fuzziness about the boundary between public and private, and it appears that this incident has highlighted a portion of the gray area.

Having said all this, it's worth mentioning that the second conversation is complicated by the overlayment of the first and that part of the what you experienced as unsatisfying about asking the group to cover the windshield expense may be that people were wary of the unresolved energy around Person A's unattributed accusation. That is, Person A would not have posted the email to the whole group unless they felt it was likely that the rock had been thrown by a member, and this hangs like a dark cloud over the group and tends to stifle a discussion about principles until that tension is resolved.

Did anyone say that living with others was easy?