I see the vultures circling over Bitrague hill. Given today’s wind direction there is probably an updraft there keeping them aloft but in this hilly region, it’s certainly not the only place with a suitable updraft. There are about ten vultures. How did they collectively decide to circle over that hill and not somewhere else? I suspect they didn’t all have an equal voice in the debate. Perhaps they all follow a lead vulture. Or perhaps there’s a more complex hierarchy in which each vulture follows its immediate superior. I notice that they look content with their choice, wheeling around on the wind, each bird moving independently but staying in touch with the others.

This morning I cursed the restrictions that are imposed on me by family life. I wanted to do my own thing, but like an outgrown teenager, my voice seemed to count for frustratingly little. Everything would be so much simpler if I had fewer people whose demands I needed to accommodate. This holiday, like every holiday, would be easier if I were alone, or perhaps with just one other person. A single relationship would be manageable. A question like What shall we do today? would be tractable with one other person. We could each state our preferences then, if those differed significantly, play around with options for timing and alternatives until we found common ground. So you want to stay at home and I want to go to Girona? How about we stay at home today then go to Girona tomorrow? Or how about we do it as a day trip instead of overnight? Or how about we just go as far as Perpignan? That sort of negotiation would be manageable.

But a family of five? I have to negotiate through four channels. Within the family there are 10 channels – no wonder it all gets so complicated. Each of us has independent ideas and when we seek common ground, we sometimes find none. We end up with little of what each person wants. Everyone feels a little aggrieved at the compromises. It may be useful training for life but it’s no basis for short-term peace and harmony.

This problem is universal. I recall reading some theory about electoral systems – essentially the various ideas of how to answer the who-should-rule question. Researchers discovered in the 1970s that the most basic principles of a good electoral system – principles that are essential for a fair and rational system – turn out to be fundamentally incompatible. And that is because there is actually no such thing as the will of the people. No amount of averaging, summing, or other combining can create a collective will. Even at the level of a single person making a single choice, such as answering the question of what to do next, choosing one option out of multiple alternatives is a highly fallible process. Mistakes are inevitable. A person can never know for sure whether they are making the correct choice and frequently will fail.

That is my experience of family life. I think it is good to make decisions collectively but I have not found a way to consistently achieve that. Sometimes either I or my wife resort to dictatorship. Sometimes one of the children attempt that too. Elliot Temple wrote something about this. He advocates the taking children seriously theory. He acknowledges that it is problematic to effectively negotiate a collective decision with parents and multiple children. His solution? Lessen the problem by having only one child. Sorry, Elliot, but that’s a fudge. It doesn’t address my problem at all. The one-child train has already left the station.

The one thing that I find does help is to tap into new ideas. This is where we have it over the vultures. When deciding what to do today, we are not restricted to a short menu, though lack of sleep and grumpiness can make it seem that way. Creating new ideas takes time and effort. But tossing those new ideas into the mix definitely helps. That’s where the common ground is most likely to be found.