Like many other Quakers I belong to many other groups who operate by consensus, but in those groups usually a single or even several dissenting voices will be ignored so we can "get things" done. And of course in those groups there is no belief that we are looking for divine guidance. In those groups we are looking for the group wisdom or just unity for action. There we believe we are guided by our own intellects, so it again becomes easy to get competitive about differences of opinions and to be attached to desired outcomes.
In a previous piece about internalized Quakerism, I have shared about how the Quaker ways I was raised in influence the way I operate in the outside world: sometimes for the best and sometimes for the worse. When it is for the best I am able to help inform, educate and elevate other groups I belong to. When it is for the worst, I am unconsciously expecting people in these other secular settings to behave like Quakers and am surprised, distressed or ill prepared when they do not. I'm sure all Quakers have had the experience of being in a secular setting where a group has to decide on something and someone calls for a "vote" and after a few people make "persuasive" ranging to "bullying" or "domineering" comments, the group votes. The vocal majorities view point installed and everyone else's needs or wants are disregarded. As a Quaker there is a distinctly bad feeling knowing that many people have just lost. It does not feel better to me, as a Quaker, when my "side wins" the vote because I can feel the subtle violence of people being run over.
So the interesting question to me is how can we bring a little bit of Quakerism to the rest of the world? I'm not talking here about preaching about Quakerism. I think in general the voice that says: "the way my group (church) does it is..." Is not a voice that is well appreciated. However, I do think that if we simply use what we know to make suggestions, if we hold out the idea that it is possible that a minority view point is worth listening to, or that if we don't rush to vote once we have a majority number, but keep problem solving till more people are happy, or suggest that there could be a win/win that will please everyone...I think these suggestions are powerful ones that can be transformative for groups we are in. I have verbalized to my climate group on several occasions that a sole voice of dissent can still be bringing us valuable information and asked us to consider that. I think this has been a very revolutionary thought for many in the group and changed how we listen to each other.
I remember in my 20's going to anti-conscription meetings that an older Quaker man was in. He did not speak often, but whenever he did it was to urge the group to look more deeply at a minority view point that had already been stated, or to ask us to look for third ways, or to ask us to figure out how we could make the "proposal on the table even better" by addressing concerns raised about it. I remember being comforted by his mere presence in the room and awed by how he consistently made the group function better. Now in retrospect I can see that he was choosing to "clerk" the meeting even without the title. What if we all did that where we are? We could be "patterns and examples" wherever we go.
Recently in my secular climate group we went to meet with our two Senator's staffs. In the first meeting the aid was saying things that were frankly quite ill informed and fairly useless. One of my comrades in anger snapped at her "Could we talk to someone who knows something." X I called out his name, stopping him, then to her I said "I'm sorry for that; we would like to know..." After we left he was curious about why I had stopped him and eager to tell me that she did not know what she was talking about and it was appropriate to be angry." I told him: "Emotion is always appropriate, but not disrespect. She is simply trying to do her job. She is a child of God just like you and I, and we get to disagree with her as much as we want, but it is not ok to treat her with disrespect". Thus I did not have to tell him all about God within each of us, yet still I had "eldered" him about a Quaker principal in a way he could hear and understand. (He conducted himself respectfully in the next Senator's office.)
I have written in a previous blog about having to learn how to testify in secular settings not from my intellect, but from still listening for the truth I am to speak. This again is an example of learning how to bring my Quakerism into my activism.
My most recent and startling realization is that I was clerking secular meetings where I was providing no point of view, but trying to get the group to look at the deeper questions with the assumption that that would lead us to the truth. After a number of very dissappointing times of the loudest voice in the room carrying the day or many people being uncomfortable because they did not know the answers to the questions I was raising, I finally realized I was misapplying the Quaker model here. I was operating as if people where going to listen for God's voice when they were not. So instead I listened in myself for what the truth might be as best I could grasp that. I put it down on paper as a "proposal" and brought it to my group, stating clearly that I was not attached to the proposal and willing to see it change if we could think of better ideas. It gave the group a jumping off place for discussion, it gave us focus and rather than hours of wandering around lost in circles we were able to have a productive discussion and come to a decision.
It was fascinating for me to realize that in that case, before hand my Quaker assumptions or patterns were not serving me well. I now have a better way, but I will need a Quaker committee of elders or anchor committee, so I do not get lost in ego or blindspots by this way of trying to lead. In general the American public does not see the search for Truth as part of the work of life. But there is no reason we cannot call our fellow citizen's to look for the Truth. In fact what a breath of fresh air for most people to have presented the idea that the Truth is out there and available and that we can hold it up!
