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. 
I hope it’ll only be one year until we chuckle about us now 
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 
), 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. 
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. 
1 Like
Content Circle just clarified that the domain of the content on the /sofa/ page (which has this image) is held by SoFA’s General Circle operational leader, currently @TedRau !
In the meeting I offered this proposal because it includes information like Partnerships, our Mission and Vision, etc. (and didn’t really think it made sense for website circle to be responsible for such important content, but also didn’t think it needed a whole circle to discuss it). You can see the decision here.
So, assuming the history of Sociocracy/SoFA wants to stay on this page, Ted’s the person to talk with! 
I would offer that if anyone wants to draft up another version, that would likely be pretty well appreciated!
Perhaps even a helping circle could meet (not sure if @TedRau would want to join?) and work on it and offer a proposed revision. Since the domain is delegated to Ted, it would just need to be signed off there and website circle would make the update.
I would also offer that this is a great topic for an article all unto itself!
Anyone can offer an article to submssions@sociocracyforall.org and it’s likely to be published by Web Content Production Circle.
Also, @hope.wilder is doing an english language writer’s workshop where folks might find support for that.
1 Like
@alex.rodriguez @eric.tolson @kare.wangel @cj.oreilly @Andrew.Grant @stephanie.nestlerode @shala.massey
What I’d love to do is this: let’s workshop a replacement.
I am putting a canvas into this google drawing. What do you think is worth showing so people can situate sociocracy into history and context? Note: it has good history so you don’t have to worry about changing it because we can always go back.
1 Like
I don’t see any content in the drawing, aside from logos on the left.
Do you want us to build something from scratch, Ted?
Sure. I was starting and then gave up
1 Like
RE: writer’s workshops, we are hoping to start the next one in September.
Great topic for discussion! Shala is currently writing an article about circles and the roots in indigenous traditions, as well as how circles manifest in other practices like restorative justice. She’s doing a lot of research, I’ll be interested to see what she comes up with!
2 Likes
Thanks @hope.wilder , and @shala.massey , I am looking forward to learning what you are finding.
@kare.wangel I gave it a start now in the google drawing, pulling from the concepts more than people.
Yet, of course that’s also bogus to a large extent.
There’s never one origin. For example, nonviolence is a principle in pacifism which was strong in Quakers so it has been around and one of the core foundations of earliest sociocracy. Yet, NVC as a technique is fairly new, from the 70ies. Just as one tiny example because I happen to know the story, Jerry was part of the group that published Marshall Rosenberg’s book when it first came out. He also later learned about socicoracy from the zen peacemakers and started teaching it. When did nonviolence and NVC enter sociocracy?
Really, we have to discuss the level reductionism we’re comfortable with. As soon as one draws the concentric circle just a tiny bit wider than people who actually identified with sociocracy/Sociocratic Circle method as in the originally discussed image, it’s impossible to draw anything even remotely accurate.
Maybe we can draw something of value anyways - take it away, everyone! As I said, no worries in making changes, all versions are kept safely by google 
2 Likes
I like it so far. I added some stuff on the right-most side.
Hey! If you’re interested in anarchism, join the discussion in this thread! Sociocracy and Anarchism (Eric Tolson) - #8 by eric.tolson
1 Like
After watching Sophie’s talk and reading the discussions, I have an impulse to ask a question.
What if we draw a line between organizations and society?
It’s like drawing a line between organization and family. Yes, we always make decisions in all three systems (family, organization, and society). And they do influence each other a lot and may share the essential values. But my belief at this point is that they are fundamentally different systems with suitable governance tool for each system.
As far as I understand, sociocracy or sociocratic circle method is a governance tool designed and developed for organizations. I can feel that sociocracy community has the aspiration to influence how the whole society operates. But on the very hands-on level, I feel the current state of sociocracy is meant for organizations. And sociocracy is probably one of the most, if not the most, inclusive organizational governance tools that are currently available in the market. In that sense, I feel it’s important that we explicitly acknowledge those people, especially Gerard Endenberg, who managed to create and deliver a concrete package that organizations can practically use. It would be a great loss to not acknowledge the hard effort of initially packaging the right components, testing them to see if they work, translating them to the specific organizational contexts, and modifying them to changing needs. This acknowledgement can be done, while also acknowledging the influences to those packages.
To me, Sophie’s talk and the following discussions feel like the unresolved structural issues at the societal level understandably jumping into the organizational level. And somehow this very important tension that affect all of us got mixed up with the organizational governance tool that is not designed and developed for directly solving societal issues. It’s a different story when we ask the question,
To what kind of organizations does SoFA want to offer the tool?
Then we could say we want to work with organizations that directly tackle structural societal issues. Yet, sociocracy as a tool doesn’t seem to belong only to those organizations that are explicit about social change.
===
Since the image lies within ‘about SoFA’ page,
How about modifying the original image so that it contains the origin and lineage of SoFA?
People are curious about how founders, Jerry and Ted, started SoFA, how they came to meet sociocracy, and why they decided to spread sociocracy. And I assume human connection lineage would probably stop at Kees Boeke. By human connection lineage, I mean Ted learned from Jerry, Jerry from John Buck, John from Gerard Endenberg, Gerard from Kees Boeke and so on.
And for the ‘true’ origin story and development, maybe it could fall into the domain of ‘sociocracy historian’ when such a person becomes available in the future. And I doubt that such role needs to be within SoFA now. That task somehow feels too heavy for SoFA with its limited resources.
2 Likes