This is Chapter 14 of my book, Expanding Consent, all about the ways we live in with our children in a consent-based way, and how this expands out into the other places we inhabit and the world at large. It is free to read for all subscribers, but please consider supporting my work by sharing or becoming a paid member.
You can catch up on previous the chapters here.
Paid subscribers: scroll to the bottom for a subscriber-only chat - ask questions, tell me your story, comment on the chapter! Can you believe we are almost at the end of this bookstacking experiment?!
Chapter Fourteen
We work together
In the last chapter, I wrote about the ways we exercise and negotiate consent as sovereign beings, and in this one I’m going to look deeper at how consent is also collaborative.
Collaborative consent is an agreement that two or more people make together. It can sometimes look like authentic consent, but more often it will be centering collaboration and mutuality – it is the place where we work on preserving ownership of ourselves through authentic consent, AND find ways to live in relationship with others.
Ways it happens
Can I take you back to our sea metaphor, aka our culture of consent?
Collaborative consent is the way we practice consent within a culture we are actively and intentionally building. The sea is our culture of consent with all the baseline elements needed to make a sea, a sea! (see previous chapters for those!). The ways we express consent could be marine life, and so the daily dynamics of consent are when our sea has everything it needs for marine life to flourish. In this chapter, I’ll talk about the actual marine life, the way we practice consent - in the next, about the ways our seas can shift and change in order for different kinds of life to flourish.
Not all expressions of consent are the same, and not all seas are the same! Every sea has unique features that facilitate its own unique life to grow and sustain itself. It’s the same for the way we centre consent in our spaces. We are unique, and the communities we build are also unique; as a result, our consent practices will be unique too.
Consent, by conventional definitions, is agreeing to something. You are asked a question and you say yes, no maybe; you have a conversation and make a collaborative agreement, and so on.
But in this book I’ve been using consent-based-ness in a much broader way: as the things that happen when we come together and agree in various ways; as the expression of who we are and how we want to show up in the world; as the ways we negotiate “a mutually desirable experience” as consent educator Sarah Casper sometimes defines it, and as a way of existing in our homes and communities.
Consent-based-ness is massive and all-encompassing and a teeny bit of it exists in almost anything we do. I decide what to wear in the morning: I’m centering consent, rooting myself in autonomy and self-worth.
I figure out how to do something I love: also consent-based! I’m giving myself permission to follow my interests, I’m trusting myself, I’m figuring out who I am and what I need.
I collaborate with my family about an outing: we trust one another, have an awareness of power dynamics, accommodate those of us who need it, find ways to partner that work for us all.
All the big and small decisions have to do with consent, in one way or another. This is ultimately why it matters: it’s everywhere. It’s the sea we swim in.
If consent just exists, why do we need to spell it out like this?
In Chapter 11, I wrote about how mutuality is inherent in humanity. I wrote about organic boundaries, and how living in a culture that is overwhelmingly influenced by domination, colonisation, and power over dynamics has radically altered the sea we swim in.
As a white woman who was born and raised in Europe, it has helped me to break down the various flavours of consent-based-ness, and how we get there, so I can really understand the pathway to practicing them. It is not enough for me to acknowledge that it just exists, because I cannot draw from a history, a culture, and ancestors who centred consent in this way. I need to spell it out because I am the product of a history of domination, of boundary violations, of extraction, of might is right.
This might not be your way – and that is okay. You might have a deeper intuitive sense of consent in your home, or it might be influenced deeply by your culture and background in ways that are different to mine. My way may not resonate with you at all, and that’s okay.
There is no one way.
Collaborative consent
This is the type of consent we collaboratively agree on, and it can exist in different categories and happen in different ways.
(Side note: to an extent, there is no binary between authentic/embodied consent and collaborative consent, but you can picture them more along a line where things like what I wear in the morning are almost entirely my authentic decisions, and all other daily decisions and actions fall along a spectrum of collaboration.)
Collaborative consent might come about in group settings, whether it’s a family, learning centre, co-op or other group of people.
It can look like (this is not an exhaustive list!):
· negative consent: this is where there is an absence of objection - similar to willingness, or going along with something, or perhaps when we just don’t want to make a decisions and defer to others. Nobody is excited, but nobody is enduring it either; people are willing to go along. I’ll talk more about this in detail below!
· fixed parts of consent or “consent as an agreement”: this is where we agree on things beforehand and they remain in place for a period of time. As I will write below, there are levels of fixed-ness (it’s more a spectrum than a binary) and nothing is literally fixed because everything is under the umbrella of consent, which by definition can be rescinded. (“Consent as an agreement” is something one of my kids came up with, and it stuck. They were describing fixed parts (although I didn’t realise at the time)! I use the two terms interchangeably now but will stick with fixed parts for clarity).
· flexible and moving parts of consent: this is where we actively collaborate in the moment to come up with a mutually satisfying, if not perfect, solution.
All 3 of these interactions, and others, rely on us understanding the difference between enthusiasm, willingness, and enduring.
The last two are terms I’ve adopted from consent educator Sarah Casper, when she explains that coming to agreements isn’t always going to look like full, unequivocal enthusiasm on everyone’s part. Sometimes it might look like a willingness to go along with something, even if it’s not our ideal thing. She also mentions how there is a difference between willingness (we’re up for it, and we’re willing to see how it goes) and endurance (we are putting up with something unwillingly).
Willingness will be essential at times, because we aren’t always going to get enthusiasm - it’s not realistic. We aren’t always going to be able to do the things we want to do. There might be times when compromise is needed, or when we simply don’t have a strong opinion either way. There may be times when we agree to go along with something and just see how it goes, or we simply have no objections to the plan, and no alternative proposals to make! Willingness however, is often enough because it shows the person is up for trying, or seeing how it goes, or willing to go along with something, or perhaps doesn’t feel any particular way about a thing. All of that falls under willingness, and it is consensual because it is also, at any point, reversible.
Endurance on the other hand, is probably telling us the person is not consenting. When a child “agrees” to eat their broccoli but does so as if they are going to be sick, that is endurance. When my husband asks me to set the table and I do it with a ton of sighing and dragging of feet, that’s endurance. We don’t really want to do the thing, but for a variety of reasons (perhaps because we’ve been conditioned to say yes, or because we feel guilty saying no, or because we’ve been cajoled or coerced into it) we do it anyway, but reluctantly.
Why is this not okay?
It’s not okay because it’s not consent (we don’t really agree to it, and we’re not really willing to try), and also in my experience it’s not okay because it breeds resentment. When I do something unwillingly and reluctantly, I tend to feel annoyed and resentful about it. In fact, if I start to do something and feel the beginning of resentment - that’s often how I can tell that it should have been a no, or that I should perhaps have agreed under different terms.
There are many internal dynamics to consent, and I will get deeper into them in the next chapter.
“Fixed” parts: values and agreements
Figuring out what the fixed parts of our consent-based relationships are, is helpful when it comes to collaborative consent because it enables us as parents and carers to establish where our duty of care lies, and where we can find space to release control.
It helps to establish a line between what is our responsibility, and what it our child’s. To define which things we locate as constants and necessary elements to our lives, and which things we can let go. It defines the lines between protection, provision and control.
This is something I learned from Sophie Christophy, when I interviewed her on my podcast and then in later conversations we had. Christophy spoke about how she distinguishes between “fixed” and “moving” parts of consent-based-ness, and I absolutely loved these terms and immediately started exploring what they might look like for me.
Fixed parts and moving parts are broad ways we can conceive of the way consent is expressed in community. They are not prescriptions of what has to be a fixed agreement or a moving one, and how and why and when that needs to be done. They are descriptive terms to signify fixed, pre-agreed aspects of consent-based living, and more fluid, moving ones.
Fixed parts look like things that we can agree beforehand, sometimes in community, and sometimes as parents or caregivers. There is awareness of these parts, and they become shared agreements for a specific space, or in your home or family. They might reflect your family or community values, or simply be ways to guarantee the smooth running of your home or space.
So for example, in consent-based settings, there might be agreements around keeping the space tidy, around respecting one another’s bodies, and so on. These might be co-created by all members of the space, or they might be pre-established agreements by those responsible for running the space. Sophie sees both as legitimate.
In our home at the moment, fixed parts looks like things that help our family life run smoothly, that people can expect to happen regularly, and that need to be done in order to meet people’s needs. This may not be the case for everyone, but for us fixed consent has a lot to do with meeting needs, rather than creating arbitrary rules.
Just because something is fixed, does not mean it is an arbitrary, top-down rule. The way we come up with our fixed agreements is THROUGH consent-based practices. This is what makes our fixed agreements different to rules that one or both of the adults come up with, and expect the children to follow.
So for example, grocery shopping on Monday is something we have all agreed on as a good idea and a need for our family. It is something people are willing to do, rather than enthusiastic about, in the sense that nobody really enjoys it, but we all have no valid objections to having to buy food to survive! It is fixed (because it’s pre-agreed upon, and predictable) and it is consent as an agreement (because we all agreed on it), and it is negative (because it was consented through a process of no objections.) (I will talk more about negative consent in the next chapter!). This doesn’t mean we can’t be flexible about it, but it does mean that if everyone’s doing well and there are no major reasons not to go grocery shopping, we will be going on Monday.
(Note: I wrote this chapter quite a while ago, and this was what we did on Mondays then. This is no longer the case! I wanted to be transparent about this fact.)
Another fixed part for us, which is different in many ways to grocery shopping, is that we treat ourselves and each other with kindness and respect. We all agree on this because we all want to be treated respectfully. It doesn’t always happen but it is definitely something we will remind each other of - we live together and in order for everybody to feel safe in shared spaces, everybody needs to be considered. A big part of this is that we do not physically harm ourselves or others.
I’m a big fan of creating some structure around fixed items. So for example, toothbrushing being fixed or “consent as an agreement” because we have agreed ahead of time that it is important, everyone is on board, but my children sometimes need some support to actually get it done. It is fixed, meaning that my child knows it has to happen, and we work together on *how* to make it happen, rather than *if*.
It’s also impractical and ridiculous to constantly have to negotiate everything – that’s just not how life works!
There is something to be said about why fixed consent matters. Repetition and strengthening those neural connections around things that we all agree are important, but that might be tricky or even hard, matters to us. This is why habit-forming can be so effective. When we link one action to the next we are creating a neural pathway for something to happen; the more we do this, the stronger that pathway becomes, until it becomes almost second nature. For example, when we put our pajamas on and then brush our teeth immediately after, we are creating a pathway between those two actions, making it easier for teethbrushing to happen.
It matters because several of us (myself included) struggle with executive functioning and demand avoidance, and therefore we need processes and regular rhythms in our lives to support and prompt us to actually DO THE THING WE WANT OR NEED TO DO.
Sometimes it’s not enough to want to do something because the doing of it is all bound up with our inability to make ourselves do things that are boring or unpleasant, and with our intrinsic demand avoidance of what feels like a task or chore.
It has taken us YEARS, but Leo is now brushing his teeth at night with very minimal prompting or help. This didn’t happen because we laid down the law and forced him to do it (in fact that backfired massively for years!), but because we agreed toothbrushing mattered, we agreed it should happen at a certain point in the day, and we worked with him to make it easier for him to do it, at his own pace and in his own time (trust me, if you don’t have a demand-avoidant kid, you may not realize how hard simple daily tasks can sometimes be.)
Fixed parts are never, for us, a “non-negotiable” or a rule that only some of us (me, or the adults) have come up with and imposed on others. That wouldn’t be consensual, because a crucial element of consent is that you can change your mind at any point.
Fixed parts are not an excuse to come up with a bunch of rules. They are an opportunity to gather and discuss what might make life easier if we could agree in advance about it (like grocery shopping), or what we feel strongly enough to come to a fixed agreement about (like hitting or name-calling).
Sometimes, fixed parts are non-consensual (gasp!)
One last thing: sometimes, fixed parts are something the parent or caregiver puts in place because the child might not always be willing to go through a process of creating agreements. It’s easy to assume that children will want to control and direct every part of their lives. And some do. But for others it might actually feel like a burden. Some might not have the capacity to gather and make collaborative agreements as a group! Some might reserve the right to simply opt out of certain decision-making, and that is okay.
I don’t always want to make decisions about my life - it gets tiring! Sometimes I want someone else to come up with an idea. Decision fatigue is real.
Secondly, as parents we also have a responsibility and can be held legally accountable for our children’s health and safety. Because we take on this responsibility, we also need to have the flexibility to actually BE responsible, which might sometimes mean making decisions for our children. We remove the responsibility from their shoulders, because they shouldn’t have to make certain decisions autonomously. It is a way of preserving their childhood and their personhood.
And yes, it is also a grey area because it can easily slip into the area of parental rights: what decisions do we get to make for our children, because we believe we ‘own’ them? To what extent, if at all, do we make certain decisions because we assume to know best? This can be dangerous territory, and I tread very carefully.
Moving parts: in the moment agreements and decision-making
This is when we come together as a group of two or more and work together or partner to make decisions that are as mutually satisfying as possible. It’s different from negative consent because although it involves compromise; it defines consent not as a lack of objections, but as a positive act of collaboration where we are all working together to find something that everybody is some degree of okay with. Moving parts require willingness, at a minimum.
Moving parts are everything that is not fixed, which is most things, for us! In an SDE space, Christophy said, fixed parts might make up 20% of all agreements and moving might be around 80%. Of course it will look different in different spaces and for every family and home.
As far as I’m concerned, much of our life is moving parts. My children are autonomously living and learning and there is not much we have pre-agreed on when it comes to their own endeavors, life choices, interests, and activities (apart from perhaps when they bump into our agreements to respect themselves and others, or when they commit to a weekly class or activity). Because their learning basically consists of living their lives, and also because I don’t consider any particular subject or interest or learning ‘outcome’ as a need or a necessity, most of their daily choices land in the realm of moving consent.
Moving parts are decisions or agreements that are made flexibly, in the moment, or as a one-off thing. What is moving and fixed for your family will look very different to mine, and everybody else’s. These concepts are not a way to tell you what should be fixed and what should be moving, but just that it’s okay for there to be some fixed agreements, and some moving ones, and everything in between.
It’s actually not a binary
When I spoke to Sophie, she emphasised that she doesn’t see fixed parts as set in stone because part of consent-based-ness is everyone’s ability to change their minds, and to take back consent at any time - Sophie prefers to view consent as a spectrum or a continuum rather than a binary of fixed/moving. She later wrote to me, “For me the fixed part is the frame within which people then make their choices, it's a boundary/structure. It's part of the structure you build within which to live your life. Some parts are solid, and some are flowing. The solid bits hold the rest and help it be stable and safe. The moving parts are all the beings within that, with their own agency and autonomy.”
We exchanged several emails over this topic that really helped me figure out a way to frame it that made more sense. In the end, we agree that seeing all the parts of consent as across a spectrum, with the fixed parts that literally keep us all alive at one end, and a large amount of increasingly soft and flexible parts all along the continuum until you get to the parts that are always moving and changing.
A bit like this!
Also: If these terms don’t help you, let them go! Nothing is ever useful if we try to bend over backwards to fit inside of it. I want my family, and you, to find words that automatically, or perhaps after a bit of practice, feel like they “fit” what is is you’re trying to do!
Sociocracy & Negative consent
Sociocracy is a system of democratic decision making that aims to reach agreement “by consent”, rather than through majority vote. Their understanding is that majority vote decision-making can often divide and polarise people rather than unite them.
To be clear, “by consent” in sociocracy means something very specific, which I will get into. It basically means what I refer to as negative consent (I took a sociocracy course with Wondering Schools and that is how one of the practitioners described it.)
Consent is not necessarily an agreement in sociocracy, as much as the absence of objections. It is defined as the lack of objections to a proposal, which allows the proposal to move forward. One sociocratic motto is in fact, “good enough for now, safe enough to try” – which essentially means agreements are reached when noone objects to them, and therefore they can trialled, presumably until someone else objects to them or a problem occurs!
Sociocracy sees consent as a way for us to agree to try something new, and see how it goes. In sociocratic decision-making, people gather to discuss an issue when it arises, and everyone’s voice is heard and valued. A proposal might be made and can be subject to several amendments, until everyone can agree on it and consent (ie. not object). This type of consent is simply a willingness to go along with something, even though it’s perhaps not your ideal situation. It is an acknowledgment that in order to live in community, we all need to do things that aren’t our favourite things. It is also a way for everyone to be invested in the proposal, and for there to be no winners and losers like we often get in majority vote decision-making. Everybody, to a degree, is invested in the decisions because nobody objects.
I believe there can be several issues with this kind of consent, which doesn’t at all mean it’s not worth pursuing. It absolutely is. Sometimes it will be the only option.
But I think we need to be aware of a few things. One concern might be that consent by agreement might serve to replicate existing power dynamics. People who are louder and less compromising might tend to get their proposals agreed on, and people who are more reserved, or in positions of relatively less power, might feel obliged to go along with things. For me, this sort of consent only works well if the community is also actively discussing power dynamics and hierarchies of oppression, and actively building a culture of consent in their environment, touching on all or some other elements of the Consent Wheel, and not simply practicing consent by agreement without any other element of consent.
Negative consent or sociocratic decision-making absolutely needs to happen within an active culture of consent, in my opinion.
What’s wrong with majority vote?
In our family, we could put things to a majority vote, but that would most probably mean at least one of us won’t have actually consented, and when we’ve tried this in the past it has been really hard to then essentially force the minority vote people to go along with what ‘won’ the vote. We believe in compromising and collaborating as a way to reach a consensus. Majority vote, even when there are only four of you, means that at least one persion might be enduring, not willing.
This is especially relevant for my PDA child. The idea of voting for something and then having to essentially impose whatever won the vote on him, if he happens to have voted against it, would not only feel wrong, but would backfire massively.
Children who are autistic PDA, and perhaps some other neurodivergent children such as those with ADHD, will likely have a strong nervous system response to feeling forced or coerced or even manipulated or nudged into doing something they have already explained they didn’t want to do. It would be enough to trigger a meltdown, which would make actually doing that thing impossible.
We have tried it, which is how I know. We have had days when everybody wanted to go for a hike, except for Leo. Now that he’s 10, he might be amenable to us having a conversation around what the options might be for him if everybody else wants to hike and he does not: a shorter hike, a say in where to go or what to do afterwards, a special snack or toy to bring or a game we could play while hiking. He is in a place where he feels safe and regulated enough, mostly, to have this sort of conversation and to do the kind of consent-based decision-making I mentioned above, in order to bring himself to do something he’s not keen on, but on his terms.
This was not always the case. It has been hard, because often the three of us – myself, my husband and Phoebe – have wanted to do something but he has not. And the times we have sort of dragged him along, he’s made it so difficult for everyone, understandably, that it was simply not worth doing in the first place.
And so we looked for alternatives: I hiked on my own, or with one child only. We ‘divided and conquered’ the kids most weekends, so each one could get their needs met and perhaps the adults could too. I’ve taken full days for myself while my husband held down the fort, and vice versa. For years, Father’s Day was the day my husband would go and play golf and Mother’s Day was my day to myself! This isn’t what people do, but hey, it worked for us. The children were not yet able to make themselves do what I wanted to do for Mother’s Day, and actually make it enjoyable for everyone. So what was the point?
We generally speaking stay away from democratic majority vote, and lean into a sociocratic model of decision-making. I want to make sure everyone is, to an extent, on board, willing, or at least feeling “good enough for now, safe enough to try.”
So does that mean there are no rules?
Well, yes. There are no rules in the sense that I don’t make rules, or no one person makes rules unilaterally. All rules are in fact agreements, because we have all agreed to them.
I suppose the only times I might unilaterally step in would be in times of physical danger, in moments of urgency, or when I am taking a leadership role for reasons of expediency and/or because it just makes sense and everyone is on board.
No rules means I am, to the best of my ability, not exercising my power over my children as a means to control them. In moments when I do utilize my power, it is not power over, but power with. And in the rare moments I do use power over, it is because there is an immediate reason that is to do with safety or simply having to take charge to get us through something hard. In those moments, I lead.
Next up, I will dive into the little fiddly mechanics of consent-based-ness - the things that will inevitably come up when we practice consent, and that we’ll need to reckon with in order for our consent practices to thrive.