multiple truths – Frameworks for Understanding the World

Istiqlál, 09 Asmá’ (Names), 183 B.E.

Quotes for Reflection

One consecrated soul is preferable to a thousand other souls. If a small number of people gather lovingly together, with absolute purity and sanctity, with their hearts free of the world, experiencing the emotions of the Kingdom and the powerful magnetic forces of the Divine, and being at one in their happy fellowship, that gathering will exert its influence over all the earth. The nature of that band of people, the words they speak, the deeds they do, will unleash the bestowals of Heaven, and provide a foretaste of eternal bliss. The hosts of the Company on high will defend them, and the angels of the Abhá Paradise, in continuous succession, will come down to their aid. — ‘Abdu’l-Bahá [1]

Question for Consideration

What are the implications of participants in Bahá’í consultation possessing differing degrees of personal agency and how can the group forestall or mitigate potential negative consequences? [2] [3]

Perplexity Computer Response:

Differing degrees of personal agency can make Bahá’í consultation either richer or more vulnerable. People bring unequal confidence, knowledge, social status, time, language fluency, material security, and freedom from coercion; unless the group actively addresses those differences, “consultation” can quietly become deference to the most powerful, articulate, informed, or socially secure participant.

Bahá’í teachings frame consultation as a collective search for truth in which participants should express views freely, without fear of censure or belittlement, and offer opinions as contributions rather than possessions to be defended. [4] [5]

What unequal agency changes

Personal agency is the practical ability to form a view, express it, influence a decision, and act on the group’s conclusions. In a consultative setting, uneven agency may arise from:

Differences in spiritual or intellectual self-confidence.
Age, gender, race, class, education, disability, language, or organizational position.
Unequal access to information, preparatory time, or relevant experience.
Dependence on other participants for livelihood, housing, approval, safety, or belonging.
Previous experiences of dismissal, prejudice, conflict, or abuse.

These differences are not merely interpersonal inconveniences. They shape what evidence enters the conversation, whose lived experience is recognized as relevant, and whether consent to a decision reflects genuine conviction or reluctant compliance.

Potential negative consequences

Pattern	Likely consequence
Confident speakers dominate	The group mistakes verbal fluency or status for sound judgment; important realities remain unheard.
Less-powerful members self-censor	The consultation loses candor and becomes falsely harmonious rather than genuinely unified.
Expertise is treated as authority	Knowledgeable participants may unintentionally close inquiry, while the group loses the corrective value of multiple perspectives.
Participants defer prematurely	A decision may gain superficial unanimity but lack shared understanding, ownership, and follow-through.
Social vulnerability goes unaddressed	Fear of embarrassment, retaliation, or relational loss can make free expression impossible; this directly violates a basic condition of successful consultation. [4]
Inequality is spiritualized	Calls for unity or detachment can be misused to silence valid concerns about power, injustice, harm, or exclusion.

The result can be poor decisions, weakened trust, dependency on a few “strong” personalities, and a culture in which participation is formally open but substantively unequal.

A constructive Bahá’í reading

The remedy is not to demand that every person arrive with identical capacity. That would be unrealistic and can itself become exclusionary. Rather, the group should treat the development of every participant’s capacity to investigate, articulate, deliberate, and serve as part of its collective responsibility.

The teachings join independent investigation with consultation: individuals are to investigate reality for themselves, while consultation enables a group to reach common understanding and define collective action through a respectful, fair-minded exchange of views. Thus, individual agency and collective unity are not competing ideals. Healthy unity depends on people being able to contribute authentically; agency becomes fruitful when it is exercised with humility, detachment, and a commitment to the common good. [5] [6]

Practices that mitigate harm

Create conditions for real safety. Begin with an explicit norm that disagreement is welcome, no one will be ridiculed or penalized for speaking, and concerns about harm or inequity will be taken seriously. Where violence, abuse, or intimidation is present, ordinary consultation is not enough; safety and protection must come first. [4]
Share information before deliberation. Circulate relevant facts, questions, guidance, and constraints in accessible formats ahead of time. This reduces the advantage held by those with insider knowledge or more preparation time.
Structure participation rather than relying on spontaneity. Use a round in which each person can speak without interruption; invite written reflections or anonymous input when useful; pause before decisions; and have the facilitator actively seek views that have not yet been heard. “Who sees this differently?” is often more helpful than “Does everyone agree?”
Separate people from proposals. Treat an idea as belonging to the group once voiced. Participants can amend, challenge, combine, or abandon proposals without making disagreement feel like a personal rejection. This operationalizes the principle of detachment from one’s own opinion.
Value situated experience alongside formal expertise. A specialist can clarify evidence and consequences, but people directly affected by a decision may perceive dimensions that technical analysis misses. Seek both kinds of knowledge deliberately.
Name power dynamics without accusation. A chair or facilitator can say: “We have heard several views from those with institutional responsibility; before moving on, we need the perspective of those who will bear the practical consequences.” This is not divisive—it improves the group’s contact with reality.
Build agency between meetings. Offer mentoring, study, skill-building, language access, child care, transportation, flexible meeting times, and opportunities for people to take meaningful responsibility. Agency is strengthened through repeated practice, not merely encouragement.
Use provisional action and learning. When certainty is unavailable, make a time-limited decision, identify indicators to watch, assign review responsibility, and revisit it. Bahá’í-oriented guidance describes consultation as a process of learning in action, not a demand for infallibility from any individual or group. [7]
Distinguish unity from silence. Unity after a decision means supporting the agreed course and learning from its results; it does not require pretending that concerns never existed. A group can record reservations, protect dissenters from stigma, and agree on conditions that would trigger reconsideration.

A useful facilitation question

Before deciding, a group might ask:

“Whose ability to participate freely may be limited here, what knowledge or experience are we missing, and what must we change so that this decision reflects a fuller investigation of reality?”

That question turns unequal agency from an unspoken defect into a shared field of service. It protects the dignity of quieter or less-secure participants while also helping more influential members use their capacity constructively: not to prevail, but to make fuller participation—and therefore wiser collective action—possible.

Footnotes

[1] Research Department of the Universal House of Justice. CONSULTATION: A COMPILATION. February 1978, Revised November 1990. Bahá’í Reference Library. https://www.bahai.org/r/690802263

[2] Perplexity Computer. “Personal agency in Bahá’í consultation.” Edited by Steve Bosserman. August 27, 2026. https://www.perplexity.ai/search/efb14e4a-4905-41c0-8fca-660857debb56

[3] Transformative Leadership Education Staff. “Unite, Decide, Thrive: Using Consultation to Improve Decisions” (Free Online Course). Transformative Leadership Education. https://tinyurl.com/courseconsultation

[4] Research Department of the Universal House of Justice. FAMILY LIFE: A COMPILATION. Bahá’í Reference Library, March 2008. https://www.bahai.org/r/582622718

[5] ‘Abdu’l-Bahá. THE PROMULGATION OF UNIVERSAL PEACE. Bahá’í Reference Library. https://www.bahai.org/r/820079356

[6] Research Department of the Universal House of Justice. SOCIAL ACTION: A COMPILATION. Bahá’í Reference Library, August 2020. https://www.bahai.org/r/974297387

[7] Lambshead, Jeremy. “Five helpful habits for effective consultation.” Bahá’ís of the United States, April 16, 2025. https://www.bahai.us/five-helpful-habits-for-effective-consultation/

Be the Voice of…

@orf_at reports that 34 members of the Austrian National Council have called for the immediate and unconditional release of Baha'is Peyvand and Borna Naimi, imprisoned in Iran, as well as all Baha'is and other prisoners of conscience detained for their faith. The joint statement… pic.twitter.com/HWVQyDGBCX
— Bahá'í International Community – Human Rights (@BahaiBIC_Rights) August 27, 2026

Therefore, all souls should consider it incumbent upon them to investigate reality. Reality is one; and when found, it will unify all mankind. Reality is the love of God. Reality is the knowledge of God. Reality is justice. Reality is the oneness or solidarity of mankind. Reality is international peace. Reality is the knowledge of verities. Reality unifies humanity. — ‘Abdu’l-Bahá The Promulgation of Universal Peace | Bahá’í Reference Library.

In Ross MacDonald’s last entry, “A Richer Concept of Ground Truth,” he discussed issues surrounding claims of truth and grounding as a way of opening up discussion about the concept of ground truth. In this entry Ross further explores the concept by discussing the related topics of multiple truths and their benefits, subjectivity and objectivity, and differences between open thinking and permissive processing of multiple truths. To help illustrate the ideas presented he will refer to the example of a developing ecotourism project in the spectacular mountains of Uttarakhand, Northern India. Take it away, Ross!

Uttaranchal Project

Uttaranchal, which translates as “Northern Mountains,” is a small state in the far north of India, bordering Tibet and Nepal. Site of the Ganges headwaters, the region has attracted many Hindus on annual pilgrimages, but, despite its alluring mountains and interesting culture, it is far less known on the international ecotourism scene. I am working with Manor Bhatt, currently a Ford Fellow at Columbia University’s Graduate School of International and Public Affairs while on leave from his senior position with the nongovernmental, environmentalist organization Shri Bhuvneshwari Mahila Ashram. Mr. Bhatt is a life-long resident of Uttaranchal.

The goal of the project is to support a sustainable, locally-owned and operated ecotourism industry based on a complicated formula of (a) building needed infrastructure of roads, water, sewer, reliable power; while at the same time (b) developing local capacity to provide eco-tourists with an enjoyable and stimulating experience; so as to (c) catalyze and support strong environmental and cultural protections; while (d) generating local income. Creating this synergy is expected to result in a sustainable tourist industry, reduction in resident’s out-migration for income, a curtailing of deforestation, maintenance of existing cultural practices and identities, and increased social and economic opportunities for residents of the region especially including women. My task is to design an on-going evaluation of the project and enhance local capacity to gather data related to project goals, to make sense of that data, and continuously improve the fledgling industry.

Multiple truths

A key part of the evaluation effort will be to recognize that multiple and conflicting truths will be abundant in the data — especially regarding some facets of the project, such as tourist satisfaction and awareness, changes in opportunities for women, and local’s assessments of tourism’s impact on local culture. Paradoxically, accepting the presence of multiple realities, even as they conflict, will actually contribute to the objectivity of the analysis. How can this be true? Aren’t individual truths each highly subjective?

That is exactly the point. Our impressions and experiences are obviously subjective, but in their collective and when considered intelligently, they yield insights and perspectives not available otherwise. In effect, because we are working in the realm of the social sciences, not in the physical sciences or religion, one more appropriately seeks truths with small “t’s.” Indeed, seeking these small “t” truths is not imprecise thinking, but actually a necessary precondition for the pursuit of objectivity. We strengthen objectivity by intelligently seeking and thinking about the many subjective realities present in the situation under study and especially by considering the perspectives of those who have been excluded or marginalized by a majority. For more detailed discussion see: Harding, Sandra. “Rethinking Standpoint Theory: ‘What Is Strong Objectivity?'” Feminist Epistemologies. Ed. Linda Alcoff and Elizabeth Petter. New York: Routledge, 1993. 49-82.

Three benefits of the pursuit of objectivity through multiple truths

Seeing objectivity as a pursuit rather than a stance has several advantages for the Utteranchal Project. Three of these benefits are introduced and briefly illustrated.

Accepting the value of multiple realities helps groups transcend the tendency to engage endlessly in debilitating arguments over whose truth is more true. Such arguments can only be “won” by invalidating other points of view. These arguments shut down any consideration of our commonality expressed in different ways. If, for example, 90% of eco-tourists report satisfaction with how they were treated by ecotourism providers, then aren’t the 10% who report being uncomfortable just plain wrong?
Compensates for the effects of more dominant personalities or more privileged participants disproportionately influencing an analysis. If, for example, the mayor of a village and a number of villagers claim that that local residents are economically benefiting from the project, but one segment of the population disagrees, then we need to ask who disagrees and why? Or consider the possibility that only 10% of the eco-tourists are women of color but, in comparison to the other 90% of eco-tourists, they report feeling much less comfortable in their interactions with trail guides, guest house hosts, and travel coordinators? While any process of averaging responses would bleach out this important information, consideration of it as a truth, even though it doesn’t fit with other truths, gives it a more important and preserved relevance.
Multiple realities means that it is possible to see common themes. Beyond the particular details of people’s stories about their experiences, are likely elements that recurrently echo each other. Identifying these elements and attempting to understand them involves respecting the different forms these elements take across stories. In this way a person’s individual experience is preserved, while at the same time people’s connections to each other are reinforced. An obvious outcome might be a recurring theme among eco-tourists of deep appreciation of the spectacular beauty of the region coupled with a deep awareness of the vulnerability of the ecosystem. The ways in which each individual experiences this conundrum will vary but the common humanity of the sentiment binds people together — a necessary basis for working for change.

Openness and permissiveness

This form of truth gathering is an open process but not a permissive one. Open means that one consciously remains in a state of “willing to consider” experiences, perspectives and ideas different than one’s own. Being open also means that we are aware that no matter how broad-minded we think we are, we still must recognize the limitations of one’s own views. Bringing other perspectives into our view broadens the horizon of possibilities. It is common to presume that openness means permissiveness — the blind acceptance of all perspectives or ideas as equally valid. Many presume that thinking critically about perspectives somehow violates the principle of openness. In fact, permissiveness is a type of poor thinking (presumption of equal merit) which actually short-circuits more beneficial analysis. Blind acceptance of all experiences shuts down, rather than opens up, understanding. For openness to have value, it must be accompanied by an acute mindfulness.

Originally posted to New Media Explorer by Steve Bosserman on Wednesday, January 25, 2006

Tag: multiple truths

Daily Frameworks for 28 August 2026