Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Sociocracy and Consensus

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

On 3/31/2003 2:02 AM, "Rob Sandelin" <floriferous [at] msn.com> wrote:

> SOrry, this still did not clear it up at all. They still sound like the same
> thing. Consensus could easily be defined as no objections decision making,
> which is what Sociocracy is too? The definition about responding to change
> in a dynamic way is exactly what consensus is also, or so it seems to my
> experience. So the primary thing is that Sociocracy is creating a system of
> consensus circles? Like teams, link to the board, link to the whole group?
> Or does sociocracy not ever work with the whole group, only parts?

There are four essential elements in sociocratic decisionmaking (not one):

1. Consent -- The principle of consent governs decisionmaking. .Consent = no
reasoned and paramount objections. (As most of us use "consensus," consent
means consensus.)

2. Circles -- Circles are semi-autonomous teams that perform their own
functions of planning, doing, and evaluating, and educating of members.
(Education is essential in sociocracy. Why "circles"? is a long story.)

3. Double Links -- At least two persons from a circle participate in
decision-making at the next "higher" or larger circle. All can participate
if they desire but at least two. One is elected by the larger circle and one
by the smaller circle. This links circles strongly with two people of
"different" constituencies.

4. Open elections -- People are elected by consent after open discussion.
(Fear raises its head in most of us when we hear this.)

Those are the essentials.

Integral education is highly stressed as it is in most contemporary
organizational theory, "the learning organization," but in Sociocracy this
education includes _all_ members of the organization, not just the managers.

Open elections are part of the education process -- the discussion informs
the candidates and other members about what the job entails and what the
members value in asking a particular person to do the job. The person can
only decline after being elected and also participates in the process.

As formulated and explained in Endenburg's works, the only ones translated
into English, Sociocracy functions in a hierarchical model but this is only
necessary in large organizations and the hierarchy is still one that
functions by consensus -- the "top" circle cannot impose anything on anyone.

The reason I want to work on a structure (and vocabulary) specifically
designed for cohousing groups is that most of us are not large enough to
require a hierarchy in which there is no circle than includes all members.
In cohousing the general circle would include all members (and residents)
_when they desired_. Sociocracy does not require that everyone participate
in the large general circle since there are two representatives from each
circle in the general circle. But silence does equal consent. Unless you
voice objections and participate in resolving them, you are bound by
decisions.

Basically Sociocracy is a social structure with consensus at its core. They
are not antithetical. Sociocracy is a system that supports consensus in a
way that Democracy does not since it rests on majority rule. Consensus by
itself, has no structure.

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