A LACK OF CONSENSUS ON “CONSENSUS”

Consensus appears throughout the academic literature with multiple meanings. While much of the consensus literature offers solutions to point in time problems, it fails to appropriately theorize consensus as an operating framework of a particular legislative body, organization or social movement (Susskind and Cruikshank Reference Susskind and Cruikshank1987; Ozawa Reference Ozawa1991). Most notably, consensus implies either an outcome (agreement within a small group or a nation) or a process (decision-making strategy). In the social sciences, consensus describes a type of social movement that gathers widespread support. While these interpretations all mesh with dictionary definitions of consensus, they lack theoretical vitality. Before examining the existing consensus social movement's literature, it is important to review work related to consensus politics and decision-making.

CONSENSUS AND POLITICAL DECISION-MAKING

Lijphart (Reference Lijphart1998) dissects the difference between consensus democracies (including Scandinavia, the Netherlands, Germany, and Switzerland) and majority democracies (US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand). The waffling conclusion posits, “the structure of consensus democracy may be the product of a consensual culture or its causal agent” (Lijphart Reference Lijphart1998, 107). Habermasian political analyses maintain that, “the telos (ultimate purpose) of all rational communication is to reach an understanding or consensus” (Habermas Reference Habermas1984, 11; see also Downey Reference Downey2006; Dahlberg Reference Dahlberg2005; Whitworth Reference Whitworth and Coy2003). Consensus acts as the keystone to true democracy and revolves around personal awareness, education, peaceful conflict resolution, and recognition of common unity. Consensus, then, implies a move away from the formalized organizations that form the backbone of social movement literature. Hierarchical organizations distract from an idealized decentralized society driven by moral imperatives of care for one another. Earl and Schussman (Reference Earl, Schussman and Coy2003) put forth online movements, as opposed to movements that employ online tools, as a form of consensus. Downey (Reference Downey2006) theorizes consensus movements as less contentious with a historical analysis of post-World War II intergroup decision-making.

QUAKER CONSENSUS

While the literature on consensus in politics and decision-making grows, the Quakers offer the best example of consensus decision-making in practice. The consensus approach of Quaker meeting contrasts with Robert's Rules of OrderFootnote ¹ that dictate a hierarchical approach concluding in majority rule decisions. Quaker consensus is based on compassion for those involved in the meeting (Bacon Reference Bacon1969; Brinton Reference Brinton1950; Hare Reference Hare1973; Hoffman Reference Hoffman1968; Sheeran Reference Sheeran1983). As Bacon (Reference Bacon1969) describes at length:

Quakers aim for unity of thought. By taking time to make decisions that are informed by all, the decision more appropriately reflects the needs of the community. This often means waiting. Hoffman (Reference Hoffman1968) refers to this process as the civilizing dialogue that:

The Quakers recognize the importance of elders or wisdom; thus, not all opinions weigh equally. “It must be remembered … that minorities are sometimes right” (Brinton Reference Brinton1950, 33). The “step-aside” can facilitate resolution, where, although disagreement remains, people set aside their personal grievances for the sake of the whole (Mansbridge Reference Mansbridge and Coy2003, 240). The gradual adoption of the Quaker abolitionist position illustrates the time potentially involved with pure consensus decision-making processes (Jordan Reference Jordan2007). The abolitionist stance paralleled the Quaker emphasis on non-violence. Here “Non-violence means more than non-killing; it means respect, even reverence. It means caring enough about each member of society to renounce any action that will violate him, even if the violation is only to his spirit” (Hoffman Reference Hoffman1968, 12).

Thus, the Quaker idea of consensus bases itself in care and recognition of the dignity of the human person. Not just non-violence in issues of war, peace, and slavery, but a reverence for the ideas of everyone in the human community such that the minority (politically, human rights, etc.) is not and will not be oppressed. Indigenous decision-making examples offer a parallel to consensus in trying to protect those in the minority with an emphasis on decisions that are contextual and geographically relevant.

INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGE AS A FORM OF CONSENSUS

Anthropologists illustrate the conflict that arises when two cultural bodies collide (Birkes Reference Birkes1999; Cleveland and Soleri Reference Cleveland, Soleri and Sillitoe2007; Harris, Sachs, and Broome Reference Harris, Sachs and Broome2001; Hunn et al. Reference Hunn, Johnson, Russell and Thornton2003; Sillitoe Reference Sillitoe and Sillitoe2007a, Reference Sillitoe and Sillitoe2007b). Indigenous knowledge encompasses knowledge embedded in community and tradition. Colonizers often strip communities' autonomy along with their material resources.

In recent years, it has become politically strategic for corporations and nations to include representatives with indigenous knowledge at the proverbial (and sometimes) literal table for negotiation. Examples include revised approaches to tribal matters for the Comanche (Harris, Sachs, and Broome Reference Harris, Sachs and Broome2001) and Maori conservation co-management (Taiepa et al. Reference Taiepa, Philip Lyver, Jane Davis and Moller1997) based on the recognition that indigenous knowledge emerges from different assumptions (Sillitoe Reference Sillitoe and Sillitoe2007a, Reference Sillitoe and Sillitoe2007b; Hunn et al. Reference Hunn, Johnson, Russell and Thornton2003). This expert-lay divide (Wynne Reference Wynne, Lash, Szerszynski and Wynne1996) is often represented in clashes between agricultural “experts” and farmers (Cleveland and Soleri Reference Cleveland, Soleri and Sillitoe2007). Hébert (Reference Hébert and Coy2003) draws the connection explicitly between an indigenous Mexican group and consensus while also illustrating that consensus at a small scale may be able to grow into larger scale consensus processes by redefining what we mean by community. The next section outlines the existing uses of consensus related to social movements.

EXISTING CONSENSUS SOCIAL MOVEMENTS THEORY

The concept of consensus social movements evolved without critical appraisal. Klandermans' (Reference Klandermans1988) consensus refers to a formalized movement that seeks ideological consistency by absorbing already sympathetic actors. Lofland's (Reference Lofland1989) formulation of consensus movements draws on the City Twinning movement, an anti-establishment and apolitical oppositional tactic to nuclear proliferation. But Lofland sets up the concept of a consensus social movement as a straw man in his description of the City Twinning movement. He lists ideology, emotional motifs, core activists, and an enthusiastic public response as characterizations of consensus movements. Then this:

These are non-negotiated consensuses; they are moral decisions much like human rights and the Geneva conventions. Who is against human rights? Lofland, therefore, does not offer any theoretical power in his conceptualization of consensus movements. He describes something new (consensus movement) simply to dismiss it as something old (a contentious social movement). Despite lacking theoretical clarity, the concept proliferated (Downey Reference Downey2006; McCarthy and Wolfson Reference McCarthy, Wolfson, Morris and Mueller1992; Michaelson Reference Michaelson1994; Schwartz, Paul, and Mueller Reference Schwartz, Paul, Mueller, Morris and Mueller1992).

Michaelson (Reference Michaelson1994) offers a better demonstration of a consensus movement in Wangari Maathai's Green Belt Movement. He characterizes the social movement literature as homogenous and dominated by combative or antagonistic movements as opposed to the change-oriented consensus movement. Mansbrigde (2003) offers a nice summary of consensus movements. For our purposes here, Mansbridge highlights the dynamism and variety of consensus that helps open up the theoretical possibilities associated with a consensus social movement framework. First of all, “The practice of consensus, well done, fosters innovation … A good process of consensus promotes the elaboration of differences” (Mansbridge Reference Mansbridge and Coy2003, 229) while at the same time privileging context for any decision. That centrality of context also helps to indicate to movements and leaders that, pragmatically, maybe not every decision has to proceed via consensus. As Ianello (Reference Ianello1992), points out, a modified consensus “distinguishes between ‘routine’ and ‘critical’ decisions, requiring consensus only on the critical ones” (from Mansbridge Reference Mansbridge and Coy2003, 248).

For the Quakers, consensus is an explicitly God-centric process, in that individuals are guided by their own spirituality. This will hold true for many Catholic Workers. At the same time, for many activists and movement members, the idea of consensus retains a secular sacredness. With this in mind, I want to recapture the theoretical power of “consensus” as procession and adaptive with a focus on human dignity and local knowledge.

CONSENSUS SOCIAL MOVEMENTS RE-IMAGINED

Drawing from Quaker and indigenous knowledge decision-making we can outline a new theoretical description of a consensus social movement. A consensus movement focuses on process that maintains respect for persons and knowledge in order to continuously negotiate the movement. First, the Quakers and indigenous models privilege process over results. Whether slavery for the Quakers or an emphasis on local issues for the Comanche or the co-management of resources for the Maori, the process of decision-making remains just as important as a particular outcome. Second, there is a focus on respect for individuals and opinions. Therefore, disrespect for any person is disrespectful of the whole. Third, there is an emphasis on the local needs of a community.

A theory of consensus social movement offers a different language for analyzing movements. Most social movements are described as antagonistic — there is something wrong here, we will fight it. Yes there is ideology designed to attract people, but movements (like Civil Rights) fight injustices. They are antagonistic, against the structures. Like the concept of non-violence, discussions of social movements are locked in a language of antagonism (Schell Reference Schell2003, 350–351). At the core of many movements is a vision that things could be different, a positive vision for society that is often overshadowed by emphasizing the conflict of movements as opposed to the consensual unity.

To that end, consensus social movements: (1) Focus on process: Quakers and indigenous knowledge recognizes that decisions take time. For the Quakers, a unified stance on abolition took decades. Similarly, Maori decisions about co-management take time, but they are actively informed by traditions and respected knowledge that is based on the context of place. This focus on process highlights a consistency of means and ends valued by those concerned with consensus. Consensus social movements ask: Can you engender support through cooperation? Cooperation, the opposite of coercion, forms the backbone of consensus organizations. (2) Respect persons and ideas: Consensus social movements value the dignity of persons. This is fundamental and often necessary in small group meetings. Consensus processes have evolved out of communities often in the form of church communities and tribal affiliations as the Friends and indigenous groups illustrate. For that matter, respect extends to considerations of land use, impact on future generations, networks and the value of individuals not based on their economic potential, or any other measure other than their personhood. In these same contexts, some people's opinions carry more weight. Valuing those elders or experts can mitigate the effects of petty objections. Respect engenders inclusion which counter the antagonistic politics that often settle for a least bad option in majority rules decision-making. (3) Emphasize context: Respect and matters of process often evolve in local or geographical contexts. Decisions are often rooted in place and tied to tradition. “Best practices” disappoint by externalizing context. This is not to say that local equates to better. As Born and Purcell (Reference Born and Purcell2006) argue, we cannot equate scale with outcome. The local trap that many of us get ourselves into argues that the local is good because it is local and often obscures problems involved in local issues as well as blinds us to other possibilities. That being said, local and context are not the same, but in the case of the English sheep farmers, people with local knowledge knew better than the experts (Wynne Reference Wynne, Lash, Szerszynski and Wynne1996).

Consensus social movements offer a different conceptualization for social movements in general. This is not just a shift in language. By looking at certain social movements with a focus on their process and means of change rather than outcomes, we can parse out those social movements that seek positive change with visions of how the world can be different as opposed to the current overarching narrative of social movement literature that focuses on what social movements are against.

The Yukon Inter-Tribal Watershed Council provides one great example of a consensus social movement (Record Reference Record2008). With a long view about the heath of the Yukon River watershed, tribes, government agencies, policy makers, local citizens, towns and other agencies have combined local and indigenous knowledge with science and policy initiatives to form a multinational movement with astounding results while privileging consensus, respect and tradition. The next section illustrates how the Catholic Worker provides another example of this new formulation of consensus social movements.

THE CATHOLIC WORKER

On May 1, 1933, Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin began distributing The Catholic Worker newspaper in Manhattan to the poor and the hungry, the workers and the unemployed, the Communists and the Capitalists, and the atheists and the faith-filled. The paper uniquely addressed social problems from a Catholic perspective. Additionally, the Worker served as a forum for Maurin's verses that outlined a three-point plan or a “Green Revolution as opposed to the Red Revolution [of Communism]” for broad social change rooted in papal encyclicals and Catholic social teaching.

Step one of the Green Revolution involved the newspaper and discussions. The second step called for parishes and individuals to open houses of hospitality, similar to a shelter. Last, Maurin proposed a return to communal agricultural living presciently anticipating the “back to the land” calls of the 1960s. Maurin soon began inviting those he met to the meager publication offices for sustenance. From those first encounters emerged hundreds of houses of hospitality and a distinct enactment of social justice.Footnote ²

The Catholic Worker demonstrates qualities of both traditional and new social movements as well as remaining an enigma given its combination of traditionally liberal, social justice orientations, and Catholic pietism. Many have discussed this paradox, especially in relationship to the Left, the New Left, and Catholic liberal traditions (Boehrer Reference Boehrer, Thorn, Runkel and Mountin2001; Coy Reference Coy1988; Piehl Reference Piehl1982; McKanan Reference McKanan2008). The work on new social movements highlights how this contradiction goes beyond merely the liberal/conservative dichotomy (Calhoun Reference Calhoun1993; Offe Reference Offe1985; Rose Reference Rose1997). The social networks of the Catholic Worker developed via the decentralized structure that emphasized community, context, and a cross-class approach (Calhoun Reference Calhoun1993; Nepstad Reference Nepstad2004). As a lay and volunteer organization, the Catholic Worker could risk experimentation with economic and organizational structures not possible in the Church hierarchy.Footnote ³ Furthermore, no one has ever been catalogued or charged dues to belong to the Catholic Worker.

THE CATHOLIC WORKER AS A CONSENSUS SOCIAL MOVEMENT

Drawing on the formulation outlined above as to what constitutes a consensus social movement, what follows is a description of how the Catholic Worker operates with a focus on process, respect for persons and ideas while operating with an emphasis on local context. Following that I illustrate three examples where consensus unites the Catholic Worker.

CATHOLIC WORKER FOCUS ON PROCESS

Despite Peter Maurin's “plan,” the Catholic Worker evolved negotiating between the plan and the reality of borderline destitution and turnover. While Dorothy Day has been viewed as a benevolent dictator — an anarchist who prefers to be the anarch according to Tom Cornell — her personal struggle between a vision for the Catholic Worker and an emphasis on decentralization epitomizes the movement's continuous renegotiation of what it means to be a Catholic Worker.

Payerhin and Zirakzadeh (Reference Payerhin and Zirakzadeh2006) contrast frames with negotiations regarding the “shared mental experiences” of movement participants. The negotiated approach relies on diverse historical work (Banaszak Reference Banaszak1996; Brinkley Reference Brinkley1983; Cohen and Arato Reference Cohen and Arato1992; Gitlin Reference Gitlin1980; Harvey Reference Harvey1998; Kelley Reference Kelley1994; Melucci Reference Melucci1996; Steinberg Reference Steinberg1999; Reference Steinberg, Meyer, Whittier and Robnett2002) and involves the continuous negotiation of a movement's heterogeneous goals. Negotiation theorists emphasize the “multivocal” and participant ownership of a movement's goals (Steinberg Reference Steinberg, Meyer, Whittier and Robnett2002, 210–211) that contrasts with framing's unifying theme developed by leaders and enacted by participants. In both instances, the movement positions itself in just opposition (Tesh Reference Tesh2000, 123).

Consensus, through a process of negotiations, provides a movement model of dialectical change over time starting with a frame. For the Catholic Worker, that process ties in with a respect for persons and ideas.

RESPECT

Like many indigenous peoples and religious traditions, the Catholic Worker respects the dignity of human persons; that respect originates in the biblical claim that humans were created in God's image and likeness. More recently, the philosophical tenants of personalism advocate direct personal aid and bolster a theory of positive social change (Coy Reference Coy2001; Holben Reference Holben1997; McKanan Reference McKanan2008). Personalism also shares qualities with the political theory of non-violent anarchism. Expressions of communitarian anarchism, notably of Tolstoy, Proudhon, and Kropotkin, which focused on resistance to the state and the value of human freedom, propelled Day and Maurin toward the anarchic, decentralized structure that has endured and evolved since 1933 (Boehrer Reference Boehrer, Thorn, Runkel and Mountin2001; Segers Reference Segers1978). The Catholic Worker offers social alternatives based on their unique expression of Christian anarchism to the point that personalism and anarchism are often used interchangeably (Boehrer Reference Boehrer2003). The Catholic Worker's faith affiliation often prevents them from being recognized as anarchists however (Woodcock Reference Woodcock1967).

Dorothy married the epistemological affinity between Catholicism and anarchism through their views on work, the dignity of the human person, and the primacy of conscience, despite protests from anarchists and Catholics alike. For Ellul (Reference Ellul1988), all true anarchism is non-violent, thus lending itself easily to Christianity. For the Catholic Worker, like the Quakers, non-violence applied to interpersonal and structural relationships. The arrival of World War I conscientious objector and anarchist Ammon Hennacy to the Catholic Worker ushered in a new era in non-violent resistance that meshed well with Dorothy's well-entrenched pacifism (Day Reference Day1983, see Chapter 10, 106–121; McKanan Reference McKanan2008, 62–66).

CONTEXT, THE LOCAL AND DECENTRALIZATION

A personalist philosophy emphasizes personal responsibility in response to immediate needs. This applies to individuals and to the houses. These goals translated into specific material structures as an organization. Day (Reference Day1948, 2) encouraged the movement to grow locally, “[A house of hospitality] can never be operated from outside.” The Catholic Worker remains diverse and varied in its execution of the mission of personalism (Betten Reference Betten1970). Although the New York houses remain the traditional “headquarters” because of the newspaper, the multiple houses across the country have different foci exhibited by the resistance activism of the Des Moines Catholic Worker, the sex worker ministry of the San Francisco Catholic Worker, and the prison ministry in West Virginia. Other houses focus more on non-violent resistance (Coy Reference Coy2001). Spickard (Reference Spickard2005) illustrates the importance of house masses to the Los Angeles Catholic Worker similar to Medvetz (Reference Medvetz2006) and Klatch (Reference Klatch2004) on the need for community boundaries for maintenance. Historically, houses opened and operated with Day's assent. During World War II, Day's staunch pacifism put many off in the face of fascism and prompted some to drop the “Catholic Worker” label. Consensus as a negotiated process does not always end in harmonious resolution; it does ensure that people's views will be heard as demonstrated by dialogue in the newspaper concerning pacifism, conscientious objection, and war.Footnote ⁴

Mansbridge (Reference Mansbridge and Coy2003) might describe the Catholic Worker as polycephalous or multi-headed. Segers (Reference Segers1978, 226) argues, “It is decentralized and anti-organizational; every house is autonomous and the Catholic Worker does not attempt to perpetuate itself as an institution or organization.” While Day (Reference Day1983, xix) once described the “organization” of the Catholic Worker thus: “We don't have any in the usual sense of the word;” there's also an oft-repeated motto in the Catholic Worker tradition that it's an organism, not an organization.

A note on categories here might help. The differences between process, human dignity, and context are artificial. In practice, these ideas are dynamic, negotiated, and dialectical; they influence one another just as ideas about each evolve and change. The categories presented here illustrate the various ways the Catholic Worker negotiates and renegotiates itself and its philosophical foundations. At the same time, concerning the uniqueness of the Catholic Worker, an anarchist author wrote, “If it did not exist I would have thought it impossible” (DeLeon Reference DeLeon1978, 65).

THREE EXAMPLES

That same uniqueness plays out in various ways that give credence to the Catholic Worker as an example of a consensus social movement. The following examples illustrate the interplay between process, respect, and local action that have come to define the Catholic Worker for those within and those outside (though those boundaries are up for negotiation as well).

CATHOLIC WORKER “AIMS AND MEANS” AND THE WORKS OF MERCY

The Catholic Worker combined with the writings of Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin form the theory of the Catholic Worker most explicitly laid out in the “Aims and Means of the Catholic Worker.” This statement's republication every May helps reiterate the foundational ideas of the movement (2010a). By drawing on the concrete teachings of the Catholic Church regarding labor, the dignity of work, and social justice in combination with European ideas about just economic structures, decentralized organizational methods, and a distrust of the state and authority, the Catholic Worker provides a dynamic and enigmatic frame that attracts diverse participants. Rather than worry about the outcome of a strike, Catholic Workers deliver soup and coffee to striking workers on a cold evening.

The works of mercy emerge from the New Testament in the Gospel of Matthew (25:31–46) where Jesus teaches about those who may and may not enter heaven. He emphasizes the Christian duty of feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, visiting the prisoner, sheltering the homeless, and visiting the sick. The works of mercy, McKanan (Reference McKanan2008) argues, retain emotional power because everyone can practice them and assume the value of all human life (personalism). The conclusion of the “Aims and Means” in the Catholic Worker newspaper (2010b) reads: “We must be prepared to accept seeming failure with these aims, for sacrifice and suffering are part of the Christian life. Success, as the world determines it, is not the final criterion for judgments.”

Since the 1930s, the “Aims and Means” declaration has changed, been debated, attacked, and honored. It is not static, nor is it binding in any way. McKanan (Reference McKanan2008) outlines its evolution from “Maurin's Program” written by Dorothy in 1933 through Robert Ludlow's 1954 “Catholic Worker Positions” to its restatement in 1987. These primary versions are included on the Catholic Worker website. This evolution transcends rewriting and editing, but implies a negotiated consensus arrived at over time. Most importantly, the individual houses of hospitality interpret the aims and means of the Worker and the works of mercy contextually for specific problems at particular times and places. For example, if you click on the “Mission Statement” tab on the Casa Juan Diego Catholic Worker website (2010) you are taken to the passage from Matthew listing the works of mercy. The works of mercy directly influence personalism as the guiding philosophy of the Worker.

LEADERSHIP

The idea of leadership in an anarchist movement strikes some as odd. Part of the discordance stems from the difficulty of Dorothy Day's dual role as editor of a newspaper and default leader of a leader-less organism (Roberts Reference Roberts1984). For Holben (Reference Holben1997, 67–70), the Catholic Worker's dedication to non-hierarchical decision-making has gone through two phases. First, Dorothy embodied “spontaneous, task-specific, non-compulsory leadership.” While she would appoint “managers” of the farms and houses, this was primarily an attempt to delegate rather than exert overt control. The Catholic Worker also employs consensus decision-making. Holben (Reference Holben1997, 70) emphasizes how difficult “authentic consensus” can be:

Throughout the history of the Catholic Worker there has never existed a board of directors or a set of by-laws. However, before 1980, Dorothy had a prominent role in decision-making that was rarely challenged. While she did not relish the role, she begrudgingly accepted it (Ellsberg Reference Ellsberg2008). The idea of the Catholic Worker and the operation of houses and farms have often implicitly depended upon consensus even if formal adoption of Quaker-like methods did not emerge until the Vietnam War-era collaboration with the American Friends Service Committee (the Quaker pacifist group). Catholic Worker houses and farms founded since then typically employ some form of consensus decision-making (Coy Reference Coy2001; Holben Reference Holben1997).

But leadership and decentralization are often imperfect matches. Once a house struggling with how to proceed on certain issues, wrote to Dorothy for advice and she responded, “we can't give you any advice — you will have to work it out yourself” (Betten Reference Betten1971, 250).

UP FOR DISCUSSION

While consensus often implies group maintenance, it often involves an agree-to-disagree stance. As Coy (Reference Coy2001) described, the Catholic Worker house he lived in employed consensus decision-making. Catholic Worker discussions of abortion, female ordination, homosexuality, and house finances occur in writings and workshops at national gatherings that have become a much more regular occurrence since Dorothy's death in 1980. Separate national gatherings specific to resistance activism and the agricultural communes are in development. For Mansbridge (Reference Mansbridge and Coy2003), consensus highlights creativity and differences that can help keep groups together, though too many differences can be destructive (Woerhle Reference Woehrle and Coy2003).

Financially, the primary disagreement revolves around non-profit status (see Stock, Reference Stock2010). While many resist the identification that allows donations to be tax-deductible, others have embraced it. Additionally, the threat of gentrification focused efforts on land trusts (Matthei Reference Matthei1977). Land trusts provide one flexible response to local changes such as property prices in Boston or California with ancillary benefits such as enabling consensus decision-making among trustees (with no limit on the number of trustees) (Catholic Worker Farm 2010).

Houses also differentiate themselves related to their alignment with the Church, other movements and other religions. Unity Kitchen in Syracuse, New York, once tried to write the equivalent of a by-law or mission statement and any house that did not adhere would be excluded and have to sacrifice the title “Catholic Worker” (see McKanan Reference McKanan2008, 108–111). However, it runs directly afoul of the genius of the radically decentralized Catholic Worker movement: the fact that nobody ever had to get permission from anybody else to open up a Catholic Worker houses. By the same token, no one has the authority to close down someone else's house or to deny him or her the use of the Catholic Worker name. There simply is no structural basis for decision-making of this sort, to say nothing of actual enforcement of mechanisms (Coy Reference Coy2001, 81)

THE CATHOLIC WORKER AND CONSENSUS

By continually examining what it means to be a Catholic Worker the Catholic Worker embodies a consensus-oriented dialogue of process. Second, the Catholic Worker relies heavily on the French philosophical system of personalism and non-violent anarchism that emphasizes personal responsibility for people and events. Third, the decentralized organization of the Catholic Worker allows for local issues and local knowledge in a process that privileges context.

Consensus movements rely on contextual knowledge shared over time. Those negotiations reinforce friendship, respect for persons, and community and allow such a movement to persist and even succeed. There are more Catholic Worker houses now than have ever been open — many of those for longer than ever before (Catholic Worker 2010c). The Catholic Worker persists because they value the contextual and continually renegotiate interpretations of the works of mercy.

But consensus differs based on scale (Mansbridge Reference Mansbridge and Coy2003; Ianello Reference Ianello1992). We have seen that individual houses often operate by consensus (Coy Reference Coy2001; Holben Reference Holben1997). At the same time the movement as a whole operates by consensus as illustrated by the evolution of the “Aims and Means” and the continual negotiations on emotional topics that might normally divide organizations. Further, these negotiations and consensus discussions are informed by the contextual and local offerings and experiences from individual houses and Workers. By remaining open to persons and communities without demanding resolution, these discussions remain spaces for growth rather than division. While subtle differences exist between consensus at the national and international level compared to individual houses, there is a common respect for people, ideas, the (evolving) tradition of the Catholic Worker and local context.