And have some method of dispute resolution. Thats' a lot of folk involved. I hope Sally comes on; she lives in a communal facility and will have good advice on that.
Well, I'm not sure how useful Trelay's approach might be when it's basically all family members, that brings all kinds of other dimensions, history, expectations, ... lol.
But for what it's worth, we have settled on aiming to use "mindful communication" (heavily based on Marshall Rosenberg's Non-Violent Communication), not just when there's a dispute but all the time, and always seeking to communicate well enough with each other to understand each others' needs, and look together for an outcome where everyone's needs are met.
"Needs" being the basic human needs, which give rise to our feelings. Needs are things like beauty, autonomy, peace, connection. (Not things like "that field for my mushrooms", or, "I can park my car in that spot", lol.) All humans share the same basic needs, so working at that level keeps the mutual understanding high - and the attachment to specific outcomes in abeyance.
Our strapline is "Creating a quality of connection with ourselves, each other, and our land, where everybody's needs matter".
Some nuggets which I find help me :
"All human action is an attempt to meet a need. The deeper the need, the uglier the expression."
(And when you're on the receiving end of an ugly expression... "That's a tragic expression of an unmet need". When I'm with my mother, or latterly also my sister, sometimes I am intoning that constantly under my breath.... It's really helped! lol)
"If you're taking sides, you are part of the problem"
"If you come into the session with a specific desired outcome, you're not doing NVC".
"Don't give in, nor seek surrender. If anyone felt like that, you'll
all pay later." (Resentments
always come back to bite you - and usually bite everyone.)
There are other communities which use NVC or similar, but many others have more or less proscribed processes, with roles, escalations, sometimes warnings and/or other consequences. We have found none of that helpful. Our handling of disputes is to support those in disagreement with each other to hear each other speak about what happened (factual and observed, not interpolated, not hearsay), how they themselves felt (first person only, no guessing or reporting what others may have felt), and their needs which were not met.
Understanding generally emerges, and with it connection. Resolution often follows - but it doesn't always. Sometimes personal antipathies are intractable, and eventually one or other party may disengage from the supported communication, and that, more often than not, eventually ends up with them deciding to leave the community. And that does happen, but not nearly as often as things get resolved, and people develop stronger connections through navigating these problems, which make each disagreement generally easier and quicker to resolve.
Can 4 family groups do it that way? If everyone buys into the approach, sure! If not, with all the history that comes with family.. gulp!
I can certainly point you at some resources if you're interested.
However you decide to do communication and handle disputes, it's always a good idea to have the basics really clearly agreed and documented, preferably signed by all. Basis of ownership, how someone would leave, rights and responsibilities, that sort of thing. And agree how decisions will get made - majority vote, or consensus? One person one vote or votes apportioned pro rata investment? Capital vs income (eg., one family may inject capital up front but not have a great deal of spare income to cover expenditures, another family may have little capital at the outset but a good job and can pay down a mortgage, and some may contribute "sweat equity", non-financial input which nonetheless adds value.)
Recent Posts
