Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Formal Consensus vs Sociocracy

[Tree Bressen (tree]

Hi Eileen & folks,

> I'm having a hard time telling who is who here, but I will comment anyway!
> I will also pick up the thread on CT Butler.  We use a version of CT Butler
> (evaluating blocks for validity), but I think Tree's implementation is more
> flexible and respectful, as it requires a serious discussion of a block and
> a decision IN THE MOMENT how to deal with the block, made by those who are
> not blocking, and the method of deciding depends on the situation.  Having
> decided ahead of time how many blocks are necessary for a full block to me
> is more like voting, and doesn't promote understanding.  But it is very true
> that having the option of evaluating a block does preclude it from happening
> in most cases, and I have to say I think that's a good thing.

While i am of course pleased to be seen in a flattering light, i actually 
do advocate having clarity in advance about what happens if there is debate 
about the validity of a block.  (So perhaps i was misinterpreted and am 
less flexible than you were thinking! ;-)  I think it's too much pressure 
to figure it out in the moment.

I am open-minded as to what the rule should be.  I think a group can 
successfully operate with the facilitator deciding (as in the Quakers), the 
steering committee deciding (as Annie Russell suggests), or having a # or % 
approval (as i now understand CT Butler to propose).

> I have trouble distinguishing Sociocracy from Consensus.  To me these labels
> create one more level of discourse to argue about (and here I am!) instead
> of talking about the variety of ways that we can use to come to agreement
> that meets individual freedom and community needs as much as possible.  It
> cannot be perfect, but all of these ideas are strategies for coming to
> agreement.  That seems to be getting lost somewhere in the discussion, or
> maybe my assumption about purpose of these strategies is not shared.

Personally the biodiversity of consensus approaches delights me!  I see 
these approaches as including (but surely not limited to--anyone care to 
suggest others?):

1. Consensus based on spiritual guidance (as practiced by Quakers, some 
spiritual communities in the US, and others).  Characterized by meditation, 
prayer on divine will, and often a lot of silence, a trait that is surely 
underutilized in other consensus types!

2. Formal Consensus, as written up by Butler & Rothstein.

3. Dynamic Consensus, or whatever other term seems appropriate for the 
community-based tradition practiced in cohousing and other intentional 
communities, political activist circles, and other secular settings.  See 
Larry Dressler's book for business applications.

4. Sociocratic Consensus (developed in the Netherlands by a Dutch educator 
operating a school on Quaker principles, and his pupil who refined the 
system to be sufficiently robust for business as well as community settings).

5. Agreement Seeking and other versions that rely heavily on having a 
Voting fallback.  Used by the Pacific Green Party, among others.

There are examples of all of these types of consensus operating 
successfully in groups of 100+.  If i recall correctly, Caroline Estes once 
said that the first time she ever facilitated it was for 500 attendees at a 
Bioregional Congress, doing decision-making in full plenary (using method 
#3 above, though fortunately Caroline arrived at this engagement with a lot 
of experience as a participant in method #1).  The WTO shutdown in Seattle 
in 1999 was orchestrated among 10,000 people using the usual lefty model of 
affinity groups and spokescouncils (which is a standard part of method #3 
in those applications, and to me looks very similar to the governance 
section of sociocracy).  The Quakers use method #1 in their large regional 
gatherings, and i'm sure the sociocratic practitioners have their own examples.

Personally i think that lots of groups over the centuries have essentially 
reinvented consensus-based representative democracy.  I agree with Eileen 
that the similarities far outweigh the differences among these approaches.

Cheers,

--Tree



-----------------------------------------------

Tree Bressen
1680 Walnut St.
Eugene, OR 97403
(541) 484-1156
tree [at] ic.org
http://www.treegroup.info