In the first week we were presented with a Mentimeter poll regarding, well, I guess one could call it code of cunduct when performing group work. Due to the many possible interpretations of the questions (as is usual with such polls – I wonder why we read anything into the answers, let alone an average result) answers were frequently varying. For one specific topic, however, almost all voices aligned to one: the need for group consensus in decision making.

I can’t say this surprised me terribly; after all, in the current western discourse democracy and consensus are terms that are interpreted as inherently good often contrasted with other things similarly interpreted as inherently bad. Perhaps it comes down to a difference in interpretation, but I’d like to challenge the idea that democracy and consensus are always possible or even something to strive for in every step or aspect.

In the discussion that followed it became clear that the terms were predominantly used in the more general sense of allowing everyone to voice their opinion and not to let dominant individuals dictate the group actions. This is, of course, very reasonable. Indeed, to me, it sounds more like common sense behavior rather than having to do with democracy or concensus in general.

Is the demand of consensus necessarily a good tool to achieve reasonable behavior? I’d say no for a few different reasons. First, consensus doesn’t guarantee that everyone voices their opinion; in particular in the presence of dominant individuals. Is consensus that no-one openly opposes a course of action or that everone agrees that the course of action is the right path forward? Second, do we really want consensus in every aspect? Must everyone have a saying in everything? I certainly don’t. Third, are all sorts of (potentially perceived) dominant behavior unwanted? What if a firm stance comes from deeper understanding? Forth, what if consensus is not achievable? Should work then grind to a halt?