How to tell the origin story of sociocracy?

I’m intrigued by the question of whether rounds “came from” native traditions into current sociocracy through the quakers.
On that note, it’s always been curious to me that rounds are the first thing people adopt from sociocracy but it’s not technically one of the main points of sociocracy. (The official main points in the Sociocratic Circle Method, SCM, are: consent decision-making, selections by consent, nested circles, double linking.) I’ve often wondered why that is/was. Are rounds not unique enough to make it into the list? I really wish we could get answers on that to close some of the gaps in even the later history.

On the main point of this thread, there are two thoughts for me.

  • Worry that we try to put roots into sociocracy to make it seem less europe-centric than it might be. It might well be that the native influence can never be “proven” or that it simply didn’t exist. Would that be uncomfortable? Yes. But I also don’t want to go into wishful thinking. And cultural appropriation might then be just around the corner.
  • The other question is what we do given where we are now. What are the gaps in sociocracy that we want to fill? What are blind spots to be addressed? Where can sociocracy learn from others? How can we improve what there is now to make it more “whole”? That’s why I’ve been circling around other frameworks that click into place. How can we distill the essence that we want to keep while expanding and staying flexible?
4 Likes

On the question of rounds, in the school that Gerard Endenburg attended as a child, they used — at least experimentally — a youngest-to-oldest format. How long that practice continued I do not know but the effect was similar to rounds: every voice is heard.

SOURCE: The Werkplaats Adventure, page 5

PS — I recently heard another format that achieves the same effect: “no one takes seconds before everyone has firsts.” @eric.tolson, did I get it right? Curious where this came from. Can you give some context?

2 Likes

Hey comrades. Really happy to see this thread. I have yet to see Sophie’s presentation in its entirety, but just knowing her and the topic are making waves within SoFA is really exciting to me. I think Sophie had considered making an article on this before. I could ask her if she still has that intention and perhaps seek publishing it in SoFA’s web?
On the image itself, I’ve actually always resented it. That’s why you don’t see a translation of it in the SoPra web. Ignoring the Eurocentrism bit for a second, I just generally collide with the notion of attributing movements, ideas, thoughts, etc to individuals, particularly in a sociocratic context which for me is about collectivity. I like to challenge the cult to individuallity/the ego that mainstream culture promotes (and I recognize that I’m a tremendous perpetuator of it, I love seeing my name printed on things…) I find it extra dissonant with the collective ethos of sociocracy, particlarly that of collective intelligence in circles and the notion of a greater “we”, or organizations as living organisms.
The other part I resent (and I think CJ was kind of hinting at it with the mention of a tree image) is lineal aspect of it. Does it really have one source? If we had a way of mapping every single contribution, wouldn’t it have as many branches in as it has them out? ie, wouldn’t it be critically influenced by as many other currents it has influenced in return? This reminds of a Casa Latina diagram I used to show in trainings: it has sociocracy in the middle with three rings around it: one is the practice of consent coming from the quaker tradition, the other is feedback loops and double links coming from cybernetics, and the other is circles nested fractally coming from “natural systems” (this last one is a far more vague reference and could be improved). But the point rests on two things: a) the focus is on the patterns/practices themselves, regardless of what they’re called (which would rule out Comte for example, who really only has the word “sociocracy” in common and nothing else with the actual practice), and b) the sources of the practices are not attributed to individuals, but rather to movements/currents/patterns, which I think is more faithful to the way influence works on these things. And the very last part that doesn’t vibe with me in the image is the level of hair-splitting detail it gets to, where current practitioners like Ted and Jerry are listed for their contributions but also as a forming school/trend of their own. How much do you have to stray from the line to get your own place on the infographic? What would have to happen in order for me or SoPra’s own spin on things to have its own place there? For example, Nora still teaches sociocracy starting with the 3 principles (equivalence, effectiveness and transparency). SoFA now keeps it down to 2 (equivalence and effectiveness). It’s a very little difference that could potentially make a big difference (I mean, it’s the basic principles!)
Last but not least, an anecdotic bit: when SoPra was starting out we were working on our aims and I proposed “decolonizing sociocracy” and something along the lines of centering it in the context of latinamerican experiences and territorries. Jerry objected because he didn’t like thinking of sociocracy as “colonized” in the first place. Now Sophie is thinking and speaking in those exact same terms, at the same time that a helping circle is thinking on how we want SoFA to position itself on social justice. I’m just grateful for youth as a force of change, and for these conversations to be held more publically, more widely, more often, more deeply, and with deep deep compassion for ourselves and eachother, “seeing truth with the eyes of those who wanna see”.

4 Likes

That’s actually from Ricardo Levins Morales, and activist and artist from Puerto Rican origin who lives in Minneapolis, where he is considered a “movement elder” for his experience organizing with radical groups in Chicago in the 70s. He speaks of a politcal program that is revolutionary and simple enough for a toddler to understand. A toddler can understand a maxim as simple as “nobody gets seconds before everyone has had firsts” and also transmits fundamentally anticapitalist thought and practice.

1 Like

Checkout his artwork here https://www.rlmartstudio.com/

thanks Andy for resending the link. As a student of the Iroquois Confederacy, I’m always so heartened to see people honoring the oldest living participatory democracy. Indeed the US Constitution was modeled after the Iroquois model of governance thanks to Benjamin Franklin - a quaker. During the Constitutional Convention, Franklin left the window open so that the Iroquois could hear the proceeding and then counsel Franklin in the evening. Unfortunately, our white forefathers left out the rights of women, children, people of color and mother earth herself. Slavery remained intact. Franklin understood the seeds of conflict sown, but went as far as he could with his peers. The story is told in the book, Franklin listens when I speak. It can be purchased tribe of two press . com

Unfortunately, even after feeding George Washington at Valley Forge and sharing their wisdom with the US government, white encroachment continued after the founding of the U.S. In an attempt to survive, the Iroquois decided to try becoming more recognizable to white people. They decided to formally denounce their ‘old way of decision making’ and move to the majority rule practiced by the US. The Keeper of the Old Ways was Bright Spring. She fled for her life and was saved and protected by Quakers living nearby that she knew. Ultimately she adopted a quaker man to be the next keeper of her 10,000 year old oral history. So the link between Quakers and Iroquois is strong. I would attach the story, but it won’t let me include a google link

6 Likes

From Ted:

Worry that we try to put roots into sociocracy to make it seem less europe-centric than it might be. It might well be that the native influence can never be “proven” or that it simply didn’t exist. Would that be uncomfortable? Yes. But I also don’t want to go into wishful thinking. And cultural appropriation might then be just around the corner.

This is really important.

Regardless of whether there is a direct connection with the development of sociocracy, creating writings that acknowledge other resonant lineages and even mentioning them in our writing on the subject would also keep from straying into the territory of appropriation while still acknowledging. Again: a great project for the Writer’s workshop perhaps?! When is the next writer’s workshop @hope.wilder?

Also, I do think that we could rework the graphics to de-center white patriarchs (ie. remove the pictures and focus on the concepts more than the names) and this maybe be a helpful improvement that’s more welcoming to a broader array of people/identities.
It could also include on the timeline other related, even if not connected modalities throughout human history to acknowledge their existence - thought that might be a better fit for a broader article on the topic than the ‘about sociocracy’ graphic itself.

Thank you for sharing @stephanie.nestlerode, sorry about the link restrictions - the forum restricts new users in little ways to prevent spam, but I went ahead and updated your trust level so you can post links. Would you mind trying agin?

I would love to see the links you are referencing and hear these stories, both about the influences of the Iroquois on the founding of the United State, but also about Bright Spring and the continuation of the Iroquois oral history and its connection with Quakers. This is super interesting history!

thanks CJ for the kind words and changing my status! my stock is rising as I just heard I was one of the new members of the month :slight_smile: here is link to Bright Spring’s story

Paula Underwood, who wrote up this telling, is the keeper of a 10,000 year old oral history that begins when people in Southeast Asia were hit an earthquake followed by a tsunami. All their wisdom keepers were washed away in an instant. They made two pivotal decisions. First they decided to find a friendlier ocean, and ended up at the Great Lakes of New York 10,000 years later. Second, they decided to be a learning people where every person had the wisdom, not just a few. For me, its the first case I’ve found of moving from power over to power with. I’m grateful beyond measure for the Quakers who preserved the story. Paula was also genetically related to Benjamin Franklin. Her telling of the interaction between Franklin and the Iroquois at the Constitutional Convention can be purchased at Franklin Listens When I Speak

blessings all ‘round, s

4 Likes

In somewhat of a defensive mode, I want to offer the now almost historical note that the image was made when everyone was only referring to Endenburg. Yet, I think every person who gets touched by sociocracy changes it. So the intention was to push a bit into the direction of showing more voices. As things stand now, things have shifted yet again, and it very much feels like we’re in a new age - with MANY more voices taking ownership of sociocracy. That was simply not the case 7 years ago… but I’m so happy it is now! So it’s time to edit it again and withdraw the old version.

4 Likes

My reaction: Big themes here. Good work. Hard going…

I really appreciate the initial gesture of digging deeper beyond Endenburg in the past and pointing to a diversity of people taking up this practice in the present, and I think we can go further.

Here’s the premise that I would like to explore or even explode: Our practice began when the first European white male philosopher coined the phrase sociocracy.

However, I don’t see yet how we can say that our practice has Indigenous origins, except to say that we are trying to recover a way of work that has deep roots. People have long known how to circle up, listen with heart, and decide how to go ahead. From another perspective, I think sociocracy is relevant for anyone impacted by settler colonialism, anyone who is seeking to redress the harms of extractive economics and systems of domination and control.

Finally, if we are not actively seeking to decolonize this organization, then by default we are perpetuating the system. I hold that conviction.

4 Likes

Hey, thanks for saying that. I’m so appreciative of you naming defensiveness. It’s totally normal and OK, especially from a founder’s perspective being pushed on critical topics that are often “touchy subjects”. I run into this with Jerry in Social Justice Statement HC. The Statement highlights all the ways in which sociocracy and SoFA could still do more for social justice/liberation movements. That’s not to say SoFA/sociocracy haven’t done plenty already to change people’s lives. Like any performance review or evaluation process it’s a “yes and” type approach. In the case of the statement specifically, I think the main focus should be on pushing beyond comfort and into positive challenge for growth. In this other case, I now see what you did and why you did, and it makes me see it in a different light now. So, thanks for sharing. And in another 7 years to come, maybe we’ll be chuckling about the discussions on this forum because we now (then?) see things so differently, who knows?

3 Likes

Thank you my dear. :blush:
I hope it’ll only be one year until we chuckle about us now :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:

1 Like

Here’s a thought experiment: What would it take for SoFA to be relevant to Cooperation Jackson? Once upon a time, their organizers looked into sociocracy. How might we connect now?

What about SoFA publications or circle practice would indicate that SoFA is any of the following?
safe space for collaboration | not so safe space | unsafe space

A recent post from the Cooperation Jackson:
https://www.facebook.com/CooperationJackson/videos/532467451464890/

1 Like

I’m currently writing on a semi-related topic in the Writers Workshop. My article does not speak to the origins of sociocracy in its entirety, and instead is an exploration of the history of circle gathering, benefits of gathering in circles, and the modern application of circle-based meeting formats (which spawned its own topic, how sociocracy integrates linear and circular models of facilitation for effectiveness and connection).

I do not draw a direct link between sociocracy and indigenous circle/council practices (if one exists, I didn’t find it), but rather, acknowledge that historically, humans have naturally come into circles for council, healing, and decision making–across the wide earth. While I reference evidence of indigenous circle gathering in North America, Europe, and Africa, I don’t assign or give credit to any one people or lineage for “inventing” meeting in circles because I think it is a quality of our humanness that we gather in circle and not something someone discovered. Again, I only tackle gathering in circles in my article, and not the whole of sociocracy.

In response to THIS conversation about the origin story and the related illustration: yup, that’s a lot of white people. As far as addressing the aesthetics alone, this image could easily be reimagined without the use of photos.

As far as acknowledging contributors: I think it’s important to honor the work and innovations of the brilliant minds who have cultivated the wisdom that is sociocracy as we practice it today, AND I think it is important to include the global, multicultural and indigenous history of consent-based decision-making in the conversation. We can hold both.

It surprises me to think that in the last 50 years, there hasn’t been a single significant contribution to sociocracy by any person of color. There’s a conversation.

In our acknowledgement of the history of peacemaking/decision-making practices, and the indigenous and people of color who made contributions in the field, we can acknowledge that we probably don’t have all the names and faces of pertinent figures in the movement. At the very least, the conversation creates an opportunity to develop the awareness to question the pattern. And then, hopefully, the awareness to not replicate it.

8 Likes

In response to THIS conversation about the origin story and the related illustration: yup, that’s a lot of white people. As far as addressing the aesthetics alone, this image could easily be reimagined without the use of photos.

The most directly I’ve seen this broached is in the Communities Magazine article in “The Shadow Side of Cooperation” issue (which covers many topics, such as Founder’s Syndrome :stuck_out_tongue: ), and has a particular article titled “Culture Change or Same Old Society? Consensus, Sociocracy, and
White Supremacy Culture”

Folks who would like to read it can download the issue to find the article it here on the FIC site or here via google drive

In response to THIS conversation about the origin story and the related illustration: yup, that’s a lot of white people. As far as addressing the aesthetics alone, this image could easily be reimagined without the use of photos.

It seems like then there’s just a question of: which SoFA circle is now responsible for the content of the About SoFA page? When this was written, it was put together by SoFA’s founders (as Ted mentioned, some 7 years ago…) It’s certainly due for some revision, and much has changed, Ted and Jerry aren’t doing everything now and many things are being handed off… but to whom?
Perhaps General Circle or Content Circle?
Ideas @TedRau @jerry.koch-gonzalez ?

Or perhaps another circle or individual is up for doing a new draft of the image and submitting it?

1 Like

Hi there
Was just made aware of this thread. Very exciting conversation in many ways!

Just want to say something about Tobias’ and my explorations into the Nordic Thing-governance, which is also circle based, consent based and domain based. The introduction of democracy in the mid 1800s was heavily criticized for being a lesser governance method, despite it aspiring to be more inclusive (while excluding everyone but selfsustaining older men).
Thing-governance is similar in many ways to the Haudenosaunee’s Longhouse-governance. And I imagine that similar governance-traits can be found in other cultures. Would so much love to see an anthropological/historical research on this subject.

Another point is one that Aristotle puts forth in The Republic, where he criticizes the Athenian democracy for several things and argues for a kind of natural governance - a proto-governance - that resembles both Thing-governance and Longhouse-governance in multiple ways.
A central point is that the primary need for governance, historically, arises when families (or tribes) gather and/or settle. Before that, all matters are resolved within the family. You could say that the family has domain over every matter pertaining to the family alone (which can be brutal, sure), and that they resolve these things without much formalization, but that the commons between the families necessitate formalized governance.
Thereby you gather a circle of representatives from families in a circle, each with their own domain. And since every family is self-governed, they cannot be overruled but will have to consent to every decision.

Of course the direct influence of the Haudenosaunee’s governance on both Quaker governance and the American constitution, would be great to mention as a direct inspiration for sociocracy. And I find Longhouse-governance to be an extremely beautiful inspiration.
But I don’t think there are many unique traits to Longhouse-governance (please correct me if I am wrong), but instead a tight connection to the organic, natural, sensical and logical governance that perpetuates everything in nature, and can be found throughout the world. :slight_smile:

Btw, Tobias and I made this presentation on both subjects in 2020:

David Graeber would be a good place to start in terms of an anthropological take on this issue. His Towards an Anthropological Theory of Value: The False Coin of Our Own Dreams is great in this regard. Also, Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology

2 Likes

I agree that the image should be changed or removed and would love to know whose domain of responsibility that would be so that I could make this request directly.

Uh, anarchist theory. Exciting!
Am just finishing reading In Defense of Anarchism by Robert Paul Wolf. A very nicely put argument.

I am, though, not in favor of stamping ideas as ideological per se, since the practice of framing ideologies creates an us-them situation, where anyone not signing up for the entire ideology is suddenly not an ally in its parts. As is the case with the very similar ideologies of anarchism and libertarianism.

That said, I have always been drawn towards anarchism most of all. :slightly_smiling_face:

1 Like