Consensus Within: Who’s at the Table?
by Elizabeth Cunningham

Before I became an interfaith minister and counselor, I was a member of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers). From Friends, I learned lessons about decision-making that have stayed with me and informed my counseling practice. Unlike many organizations, religious and secular, Quakers do not make decisions by vote. When the majority rules, there is almost always an unhappy minority who may actively or subtly undermine whatever decision is taken. Quakers practice consensus, which some call corporate discernment. In consensus process, no decision is taken until everyone has consented. Each person is responsible for speaking fully and truthfully. No one interrupts. Often silence is kept between comments, so that the discussion does not become a debate with the most verbally able or aggressive dominating. Consensus is not a swift process, but when a decision is reached everyone owns it.

When I began practicing as a counselor, I noticed that people often interrupted themselves, just as people will in a group. One part of the self would put another part down. Some parts, I suspected, had no voice at all. It occurred to me that consensus process could be as useful and powerful within an individual as within a group. We often make decisions without internal consensus. An easy example: “I” decide I am going to lose ten pounds. I think I have made a decision. But the part of me that wants to drop a size has paid no attention to the part of me that wants pleasure or comfort from food. If the gung ho dieter is aware of that other part at all, it is likely to belittle or shame it. Without the consent of the treat lover, the diet will soon be sabotaged.

When I do consensus process with a client, the first step is to find out who is at the table. Often people identify the different parts by emotions: “anger” or “fear.” They also include qualities, the Wise One or the Judge or other aspects of character such as the Child Hiding in the Corner. Some people give the different parts nicknames: Sports Fan or Foxy. Others map the table into various terrains. I have had people ask: do I have multiple personalities? We are all multi-faceted. The purpose of consensus within is to get to know the different aspects of ourselves, put them in communication, integrate them, and create a more just and compassionate internal climate.

After we know who is present, each part of the self is invited to speak without interruption or judgment from any other part. This is often a first for the parts of the self deemed unacceptable by more dominant parts. Strengths have a chance to name themselves and offer help to parts that are suffering or ashamed. Harsher parts can find more benign ways to fulfill their function once it is identified, for often their underlying purpose is to protect.

Over the years, I have practiced consensus process with individuals, couples, and families. Consensus within can be applied to decisions both small and large. It can be used in one session or continue for many when the decision at hand is a life-changing one—whether or not to have a child, leave or stay in a relationship, change the direction of a career. When all parts of the self have been fully heard and respected, there can be movement, opening, clarity. When a person makes a decision with the whole self consenting, that decision will not be undermined by second guessing, hidden resentment or regret. The ground under a fully consensual decision is solid and the wind is at its back.

Elizabeth Cunningham is a novelist and a counselor in private practice. For more about her work: www.highvalley.org