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

[Sharon Villines (sharon]

On Apr 7, 2007, at 2:29 PM, David Heimann wrote:

>         It's true that in consensus (and probably sociocratic) voting it's
> possible for an objection to be overidden by a majority vote.

A truly sociocratic system would not have majority vote as a back up. 
Majority voting is considered a form of violence because the will of 
the majority is imposed on the minority.

Instead it would recommend a group to step back and ask whether if 
these objections cannot be resolved whether the members of the group 
have a common aim.

Not having shared goals is usually the reason people cannot resolve 
objections.

One thing sociocracy does not do that is done by some people using 
consensus is to emphasize the "best interests of the group" or a "group 
will" or a "group consciousness." The use of the word "consent" is to 
avoid this view. A group can move forward without solidarity and 
without everyone accepting something like bending to will of a higher 
power or a higher good.

The emphasis is on the individual's ability to reason and direct their 
energies toward the defined common aim of the group. Only if that aim 
includes solidarity or working toward a group consciousness would that 
be a criterion for moving toward that level of cohesion.

Sharon
----
Sharon Villines
Coauthor with John Buck of the forthcoming
Consenting to a Deeper Democracy
The Essential Guide to Sociocratic Principles and Methods
Available April 2007 (late April)