In a Youth Resilience Council (YRC) meeting following the one described in blog post ninety-nine, a minority position voiced by a pilot participant (see: blog post seventy-three) was considered for the second time. This time, the minority consisted of a single individual.
Moral stance
It would have been simpler, and easier, to dismiss that lone voice. Instead, one member of the Youth Resilience Council spoke up and argued that there is a moral obligation to take every perspective into account, including that of a sole dissenter. The student emphasized that everyone has the right to be heard and, therefore, to be reflected in the final recommendation.
The decision
A vote was then held on whether the original recommendation should be revised. The majority agreed that an edit was warranted. A revised recommendation was subsequently drafted and approved by a majority, but not unanimously.
Autopoiesis
For me, this was the most difficult moment in fulfilling my role as facilitator. I could not display the pride I felt, as my role required neutrality. Yet my pride was undeniable. This meeting demonstrated that the adolescent YRC members did not merely engage with participation as an instrumental procedure; they enacted it as a living process. They did not just practice participation - they embodied autopoiesis.