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

[Brian Bartholomew (bb]

Maggie Dutton <mdutton [at] shaw.ca> writes:

> picture a large manufacturer of buses...in Europe somewhere (I
> forget where).  They produce buses for 40% less than the
> competition, have 1800 employees and do this with only 9 management
> level people. Somehow the top circle must be communicating the
> organizations aims in a way that people understand, support and work
> towards...whatever other differences they must have.  Competing aims
> often means another circle needs to be formed...or the decision
> needs to be resolved at the next higher circle.

I would find it easy to believe that Sociocracy could be better than
whatever soviet-type system Europe chooses to impose on larger
companies.  That's a pretty low bar.  The real competition is between
Sociocracy and ALL other arrangements that might arise in the absence
of particular ones being legally imposed.

-----

> it seems as though you are skeptical that there could be anything
> that would work and your expectation is that there are no workable
> solutions...but what if there was?

If there was, then analysis of it would be able to demonstrate how
existing theories about systems of political power were incorrect,
incomplete, or did not apply.  At a minimum, it would have to address
these theories:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_choice_theory
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem

If Sociocracy is to be an improvement in national politics, it must
successfully address the above problems at their full strength.
Sociocracy must still function in situations completely lacking in
shared aims or good faith, where some of the participants are outright
sociopaths bent on mass murder.  Would Sociocracy have restrained
Hitler, or the German people who voted to give him total power?

-----

> Have you ever experienced a Sociocratic meeting?  There is no
> blocking. It is possible that you would find a real feeling of
> equivalence.  Many of us were drawn to Sociocracy for just that
> reason...not feeling that your paramount objection was welcome.  In
> Sociocracy, if you can explain to the group why you would be unable
> to work toward the aims if the policy was approved, your perspective
> will be included or the proposal will not go forward.  I didn't
> trust this at first...but I do now.

I have not experienced a Sociocratic meeting.  I have experienced
consensus meetings where I was heard, and my intention to build my
"privately owned" house using highly sustainable materials was banned
because it didn't align with majority preferences.  It is not the case
that either I or the group wanted to act contrary to accepted group
goals.  Rather, there is not obviously one best strategy to reach the
goals, and real ecosystems and lives are too complex for a single best
strategy to exist.  In this particular case the group listened to what
I wanted, why I wanted it, and why I thought they might want it, too.
They understood it, thought about it, compared it to what they wanted,
and rejected it.  I didn't block, and we didn't have a "formal" block-
rejecting vote, but since we all know how the vote would come out, why
waste everyone's time?  I think the failure here was not a lack of
analysis or a win-win synthesis overlooked; the problem is that
consensus is a voting system, and as such is able to impose a
majority's "religion" (life strategy choices) on a minority.

                                                   Brian