radical unschooling & consensual living

[greenlee]

I'd love to hear some voices on the similarities and differences between these two philosophies/practices. Although I've been mothering and radically unschooling for 20 years, I've been a bit isolated from some of the new terminology. Heck, I didn't know how we were living was radical unschooling until a few years ago. :)

[Sarah Dickinson]

Thank you - that's what I wanted to say ;)

"We're not equals, but we're still in a loving relationship... Compassion and generosity have covered all the bases for us." - yes!

Sxxx

[redheads]

I have to start my response by saying that for the most part, I think trying to Earn a Label of CL or RU completely misses the point and should be avoided when at all possible. A huge part of both philosophies is leaving the 'boxes' behind. Of course, we use the Labels to find like-minded folk, and there is nothing wrong with that as long as we do not turn the Label into something more important than any individual. Ok, off the soapbox and on-topic.

That said, for the purposes of this discussion, they *are* different (often
complementary) concepts and I will try to use the labels as they have been defined to me (or as *I understand* they were defined to me) by others over the past 15 years. To frame my musings, we consider our family both CL and RU.

I know people who practice RU (as *they* define it!) and they wear the label so proudly that they would deny their children the choice of attending school (in the name of protecting them from ____ - fill in the blank) and they would keep their RU Label.

That situation would *not* be CL. Any person who says no children would ever learn 'naturally' in a classroom setting is painting with a pretty broad brush and may not be taking the particular class or child's needs or even their child's learning style into consideration. If a child *really* wants to take a class and you are only willing to explore *other* possibilities but *not* even try to find a way to make a class actually happen, that situation would not earn one a CL Label ;-).

I know I was Told once that since my child was taking a class we were *not RU*. Frankly, I did not care what the label was, but I suppose if you see everything as black-or-white/you-are-or-you-aren't then I guess hiring someone to teach you violin makes you non-RU. But hiring someone to teach your child the violin when they really want to play violin *is* totally CL.
And if, for the purposes of our lives, if we want to call ourselves RU and still sign up for classes, then some might 'complain' but that is ok, we each get to define ourselves when all is said and done.

Sandra was correct in that school is often not in the 'picture' when people practice CL due to the adversarial nature and general inflexibility one agrees to accept when enrolling, but there are situations in which the RU child wants a particular 'thing' out of life (for whatever reason), and taking a class is one CL way to get it. So CL *can* certainly include school!

Overall, though, CL is about seeing the entire family as partners with a
*shared* goal of supporting each other in attaining their individual
*specific* goals, and it often very naturally extends beyond the family to a whole-life approach, with CL forum members often reflecting on how extending CL concepts to others outside their family is very personally fulfilling.

RU is not so easily 'practiced' on others outside one's family, as it does tend to be more personal-choice-centered. Over the last 15 years I have observed RU often being more focused on 'Eschewing The System' as a paradigm to be attained than on nurturing the love of learning. Some even try to pretend children do not learn in classrooms - LOL... of course they Learn (just try to stop them!!!), though most likely not the lessons their parents sent them there to learn . A CL approach, on the other hand, may try to work Within The System and that is considered perfectly acceptable, you can still keep your CL Label.

For us, fair and equal have NOTHING to do with what we each *need* in a CL lifestyle, and CL is really NOT about being Equal. Some need more at times, and others need more at other times. We all work together to make it happen, whatever and wherever it is. Mostly we are RU, but even when we would not earn that Label, we strive for CL, and if I had to pick *one* to Be, I would go for CL *anytime*.

When we tell people we unschool and we get a 'huh' we tell the curious folk "we do not attempt to recreate a failed system at home, we just love to learn."

When asked about CL we tell people "all members of the family deserve the same level of respect and we work together as a team to make sure everyone has their needs met."

:-)

[Sarah Dickinson]

Thank you. That really clarified things for me.

I've read a lot of stuff labelled 'CL' which did seem to me very focussed on 'equality', and it is the gap between that and what you describe here that I think has bothered me.

I've always considered RU to be very much about each member of the family (and as far as possible the community) being treated as a full, valuable and autonomous individual, whose needs and thoughts are as valuable as anybody else's. As you say, labels are ultimately not that helpful, but maybe I'm thinking in a more 'CL' way than I thought.

Very interesting stuff. I really appreciate having a place where we can discuss stuff like this.

Sarah

[redheads]

>>I've read a lot of stuff labelled 'CL' which did seem to me very focussed on 'equality', and it is the gap between that and what you describe here that I think has bothered me.<<

It can be tricky to explain, hope I did (and continue to do it) justice... LOL. A situation comes to me as I read the above statement...

There was a recent discussion on the CL list that was something along the lines of 'how can we make sure everyone is happy getting the same sized dessert when DS wants a bigger piece/another piece' ... this is a pretty common tricky-equality-concept masking as CL.

The discussion which ensued was centered around the idea that not everyone needs or even wants the same size of everything, and in the given scenario if everyone was ok with DS having more then you just simply give her more. If everyone knows that when they want more everyone will work together to make it happen they are often OK with that exact scenario happening.

If everyone is not happy with that solution, it is ok, you are all working together to find one that does work... so you listen and problem-solve and listen some more to find out what everyone *would* like to see happen. Perhaps DS cannot have more cake now (maybe there is no more) but everyone agrees she can pick out the next cake or you can make more cake now or have a cookie (or some other solution which would look different in every family and maybe from minute to minute!), but ultimately setting everyone up to have 'equal' was not CL unless everyone agreed that equal was the shared goal in the first place.

What was the need of the cake-eater here? To have more sweet food, to feel heard, to feel like one was not living in a state of 'want', or to make sure one was no longer hungry... or, or, or... the answer can be different at different times.

If the cake-cutter has an agenda in which they believe equal=happy and everyone is not, then they can feel unappreciated and thwarted, and it can be harder to practice CL until that has been addressed, either internally or with the group. CL involves a LOT of inner work to not push our agendas while pretending they are shared agendas.

It can be hard if people who have been playing equal decide to segue into CL thinking they can make equal=happy, since first of all you cannot make anyone anything, and there needs to be a level of trust that everyone *is* working together (which only time can prove) for many of the CL concepts to be fully carried out. Making a commitment to be realistic about your wants and needs and really willing to hear what other's needs are -- really hear and respect those needs as Real and Valid -- is where CL starts.

Respecting only our own agenda or the agenda of the tallest OR shortest person in the room can set us up for a conflict pretty quickly. No CL Label to be earned there ;-)

[redheads]

>>I've always considered RU to be very much about each member of the family (and as far as possible the community) being treated as a full, valuable and autonomous individual, >>

Thanks!
This comment is a better way of expressing the concept of 'equal respect' where I think much of the 'equal' terminology confusion can occur. In CL chat when people say 'equal' a better way of expressing that concept may be 'equally valuable' since though each person may not get 'equal' in CL their needs ARE equally respected and they are personally equally valuable.

Thanks for the chance to think through that clarification.

[Sarah Dickinson]

Thanks again for your thoughts - very interesting, and I really take on board what you're saying about equality of outcomes...

... but what about equality of ability/experience/eloquence...?

So, to take your cake example. We can accept that in the best case scenario everyone will get as much cake as they want, though that may not be the same amount as the others.

But there is another inequality at play here as well - the person slicing, and the people talking about how much they want, have different abilities with regard to persuasion, different ways and accuracies at assessing their hunger/needs and so on.

So as a person slicing the cake - what do I do about the three-year-old who insists that they need the whole thing, when I know they can only eat a tiny slice? Or the eight-year-old who (temporarily) persuades the six-year-old that a thinner slice is better because it is magic? Or indeed the teenager who thinks they're too cool for pink-iced-cake, but who I know will miss it later?

There is a level of management here, and weighing needs, which is more like a benevolent dictatorship (potentially) than a democracy. Elements of weighing and weighting the needs of different people, which doesn't seem quite 'consensual'.

Any thoughts?

Sarah

[Sandra Dodd]

My thoughts are that all this talk of a framework from which to operate in is WAY more work than making a cake.

Have more cake.
Don't make anyone eat cake.
Be willing to put some cake away for later or feed it to the dog if it's getting old.

I don't need to decide in advance how I will act. What I've done with my kids is see what they want in the moment and keep it personal and soft and happy.

Much of what's written above seems ponderous compared to the flow of our lives here. And "autonomy" is problematical. Being part of a family, part of a team, where everyone there wants everyone else to be happy is all about love and none about measurements.

[greenlee]

My thoughts are that all this talk of a framework from which to operate in is WAY more work than making a cake.

Mine too. :)

[Sarah Dickinson]

You're absolutely right of course. And in fact I would just make cake... or not.

But it's still an interesting discussion. I like thinking these things out. It's the ponderous thinking out that slowly percolates into real life and affects how I act day-to-day.

Autonomy doesn't mean independence, or isolation - not to me anyway. What I mean by autonomy is a feeling of agency, of each person having power over their own actions. Essential in a family/team I think.

I suppose what I'm thinking out, is my unavoidable power over my children. I want us to live well together, and being aware of the inequalities in our relationship helps me to act in a conscious way.

Without that sort of awareness I think it would be far easier to slip into 'traditional' ruts - for example sending my kids to school and using my powers of persuasion and bringing the weight of my expectations to make us all believe that they are best and happiest there.

It is this sort of thinking out that has led me to unschooling (or whatever label!) at all.

Sarah

[redheads]

>>... but what about equality of ability/experience/eloquence...?<<

That *is* real life, no way to avoid it. So we embrace it and are thankful for the gifts each brings to the table. In CL we know we are using those gifts to help one another.
If one is hoping to use their gift of more _____ (whatever) to get More Stuff out of those around them then we are hardly dealing with a person who respects that everyone else's needs are equally valid and worthy of respect.

There are situations in which one will have one's lack of ability or eloquence exploited, but certainly it would ideally NOT be by the same people who pretend to be On Their Team, their support, their Family. And what I have seen naturally occur is that people who are used to being in CL situations recognize when they are being manipulated very rapidly and they are not very accepting of it. Makes for some very healthy relationships, and those which are not healthy are more quickly recognized and pruned than if they have been taught that another person may know more about themselves than they do, and that whatever happens may be 'for their own good' or for their protection.

I *do* trust that my children are *always* the expert on *themselves* and treat them like I believe it, and lo-and-behold they know themselves better than do many people three or more times their age.

I find it best to work with Real Life examples when talking about such abstract concepts, so I am happy to discuss the concepts as applied IRL. The things we do look different from day to day, (even minute to minute!) and are always based on what are needed by everyone at the time. Unlike some ways of Being which would necessitate our Having A Plan for each situation, CL in practice is *really* MUCH more simple than that... you *simply* listen to the NOW needs, treat each need as Real and Trust that all situations can be win-win knowing the entire family is a team working towards a common goal.

>>So, to take your cake example. We can accept that in the best case scenario everyone will get as much cake as they want, though that may not be the same amount as the others.<<

Absolutely. That is a huge step for some - letting go of the idea of 'fair' as our culture accepts it and replacing it with 'win-win' can be a tricky concept to picture. I once had someone comment on how unfair it was that one member of the family was getting steak for dinner and another was getting leftovers. Fair? Might not look like it from outside. But considering one loves steak and the other prefers pad-thai leftovers, and the same situation is win-win.

>But there is another inequality at play here as well - the person slicing, and the people talking about how much they want, have different abilities with regard to persuasion, different ways and accuracies at assessing their hunger/needs and so on.<<br />
If I assume each person is an expert on themselves and base what I do on the needs they state, it is true we may have some interesting meals for a while. Over time people who are given the gift of being the Trusted Expert on themselves and are NOT coming from a paradigm of I am the only one watching out for myself and must protect my own interests to make sure I get what I need do figure out what they need and their self-awareness and levels of mutual respect can WOW you in a very short time. Here is where CL and RU can overlap... When one who is not used to self-regulating is 'turned loose' with cake it may seem like they will never eat anything else. A funny thing happens, though... when one knows the cake will be there when it is 'needed' and everyone is working together to make sure each other's cake needs are being met, one stops obsessing about not having *enough* cake. It just isn't an issue.

Pretend the cake is water. How do you make sure everyone gets as much as they need, how do you ensure nobody feels cheated?? Stop treating cake as a holy grail and let everyone know there will always be enough to meet the need. Stop treating anyone's needs as More Important than another's and everyone finds there is Enough Everything to go around.

>So as a person slicing the cake - what do I do about the three-year-old who insists that they need the whole thing, when I know they can only eat a tiny slice? Or the eight-year-old who (temporarily) persuades the six-year-old that a thinner slice is better because it is magic? Or indeed the teenager who thinks they're too cool for pink-iced-cake, but who I know will miss it later?<<br />
Ok, as an exercise let's remove *age* from the above scenario and pretend that each person involved is 27 years old. Think about it... how would you 'deal with' each of those requests if you were in a room of adults?

Perhaps you would get two, three, or four cakes; perhaps you would find that there is no need to persuade one other to take a smaller slice since there is *enough* cake to suit everyone's needs... perhaps you would choose to set aside a piece for later as a favor, and maybe you simply believe them when they say they do not want one. At the core CL is about trusting that when one says they have a need you Believe them and weigh each of the needs with equal weight. After all, you cannot teach a person to know what they really want by telling them what they want all of the time. Let them experience it in every little thing and suddenly it is not a Big Deal.

>There is a level of management here, and weighing needs, which is more like a benevolent dictatorship (potentially) than a democracy. Elements of weighing and weighting the needs of different people, which doesn't seem quite 'consensual'.<<br />
In practice it is not like that at all, though many who practice that approach see themselves as CL facilitators - they see their job as making sure everyone's needs are met. I would call that an 'equality facilitator' and that is NOT our goal. In reality for us, we all 'weigh' everyone's Now needs with equal weight, and proceed accordingly. The biggest Tools are Trust and Respect. No mirrors, no special effects, no planning your next move, no tricks to get 'enough' are necessary.



Many ...looking forward to continued exploration.

:-)

[redheads]

LOL- funny to think about it, writing down all of the 'steps' to brushing one's teeth could make it *sound* complicated, when (in practice) it seems pretty simple when you are doing it.

CL feels simple to us, as would making the cake (or not, to suit the actual need) but writing it out can certainly seem complex. I agree that by pondering actual examples and the what-ifs one can get a clear idea of their own personal goals and perhaps learn some new ways to 'deal with' a Real Life situation which comes up.

In the cake situation, perhaps (just perhaps) our 'knee-jerk-reaction' is to say "we are out of cake, I will get more" and 'expect' that would 'fix' the situation. Perhaps it would, but just presenting that as The Fix may be a Benevolent Dictator response (after all, everyone got what they 'needed' - right??) but it may not be in reality a CL situation which we explored together to make sure it *is* truly a win-win situation.

Yes, of course finding a way to meet everyone's needs CAN be more 'work' than making a cake. AND the investment is paid-back over a lifetime as we grow together ... like all things one loves to do, it does not feel like work when one is working together to help each individual of every age and ability achieve their respective dreams.

:-D

[redheads]

>>I don't need to decide in advance how I will act.>>

Of course not, too funny... LOL. Nobody here suggested you should have a list of answers at-the-ready. One does decide in advance what their goal is. Do they want to be a Benevolent Dictator - BD (LOL) or live CL ;-).

Of course if one thought they were The One from whom all answers flowed in a household (BD model), one would need to have All of the Possible Answers at-the-ready... since CL is not that way it does not seem at all like this post with a list of what-ifs written out like a recipe of fix-its makes it sound. Far from it - the above fix-it list is undoubtedly *not* CL.

For the purposes of discussion (the Now need which was expressed by the original seeker and those who have joined in!) the what-ifs are helpful for those considering what the repercussions are of breaking from a paradigm of fair or the Way it is supposed to be.

Perhaps you do not find the what-ifs valuable, that is truly ok. Everyone's input is valuable. Questions are the Point.
:-)

>>Being part of a family, part of a team, where everyone there wants everyone else to be happy is all about love and none about measurements.>>

Yup. Exactly. I would say we are in agreement there.

And yeah that you have 'reached' your goal of living in the present and you are feeling so advanced in your journey that you find our discussion of the minutia ponderous.

I personally consider myself on a journey which has no end goal, and discussion concerning the different paths does not feel at all ponderous. I love traveling the many paths with other seekers. We all have different needs, and all of them are valid.

:-D