Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Sociocracy and Consensus

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

On 3/30/2003 1:30 AM, "Tree Bressen" <tree [at] ic.org> wrote:

> I've been collecting info on sociocracy, keeping it in a file, learnings
> bits here and there from various discussions with cohousers and others,
> seeing which parts are similar to and different from consensus and how it
> fits.

>From my study so far, I don¹t see any difference between "consent," the word
Sociocracy uses, and "consensus" as practiced. The Quakers are most "famous"
for using consensus but as Quakers have pointed out to me (rather
vehemently) what they practice is based in faith and has much deeper roots
than consensus as practiced by other groups -- it is "a sense of the
meeting" and is a deep spiritual commitment, not just a group decision.

The emphatic way that sociocracy has said "we do consent not consensus,"
seems to be to emphasize that decision-making should be based on "no
objections" and "reasoned arguments". Although when I have asked what a
reasoned argument is, the response is "anything that doesn't feel right".
>From there the group and the person have to flesh out what "doesn't feel
right". It isn't a case where anyone who is not verbal or not exactly clear
is over ridden by those more verbal (and verbose). There has to be a real
commitment to resolving all objections.

The goal is to have a decision that enables everyone to participate fully
without hesitation or ill-will. Decisions are also made "for now" and can be
revisited anytime circumstances change.

The goal is quality, but it is also quality in the context of  moving
forward, not endless debate. You move forward in increments, reevaluating
and realigning as you go.

> I just learned from my latest reading which a friend at Twin Oaks sent me
> that sociocracy is a direct spin-off from Quaker consensus.  I hadn't
> realized that, usually it gets described as being "started at a Dutch
> electronics company."  Which is also true, but incomplete.

It is actually more interesting than this. The original person who coined
the word "sociocracy", governance by the "socios", the people, was trying to
move governance decision making closer to Quaker principles of inclusion and
equality. Gerard Endenburg's parents were socialists who after WWII decided
that the only way to move Socialism forward was to prove it could work in a
practical context -- business. They started the electronics firm to do this.

Gerard then developed the concept further applying the principles of
cybernetics, systems theory, to the management of organizations. Systems
theory is the study of the way dynamic systems work. "Dynamic" meaning
changing. Living systems are changing constantly. How do you manage change
without creating inequality in decision making?

It seems that in cohousing we have the perfect setting for building
consensus communities but we don't have a decision-making structure that
supports consensus decision making. My hope is that sociocracy can provide
this.

Sharon
-- 
Sharon Villines
Takoma Village Cohousing, Washington DC
http://www.takomavillage.org

_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L