I would like to understand

, , , ,
1

How-Much-Is-It-For-All
How-Much-Is-It-For-All900×522 52.4 KB

I would like to understand.

I have to confess something to you. I like sociocracy!

I also like “WDWD”, “MVOS”, “Let’s decide together” and the " Social Justice Statement of Sociocracy For All".

Reading these I noted many ideas that I like very much and I kept them in my personal journal as quotes.

One of the ideas I like is to “bring the skill of self-governance into every corner of society”.

Yes!

I identified myself with this goal from the moment I read it.

That’s why I advocated for the establishment of a SoFA circle whose goal is to promote sociocracy to all people who speak my native language.

Now, after a few months, I can look back more detached and, as you already know, questions come into my mind.

Yes, I know … Many people are looking for answers …

Well I also like answers, but some time ago I realized that in life, the answers could change, but the questions remain almost the same.

That’s why I am always looking for questions.

Fortunately, in sociocracy nobody should have the “right answer”, as we are interested in finding answers based on our collective intelligence. Or not?

We also are not pressed to find the best answer (solution) at once.

At any given moment we are looking for “understanding the matter”, then, when it’s clear enough we can proceed to have a proposal then we go through the consent decision-making process working to be “good enough for now” and “safe enough to try”. Then, in time, we evaluate the decisions we have made through the results we have obtained and nothing will stop us from reconsidering our decisions and optimizing them, using the experience we gained in the meantime. Right?

Well, I like it very much, but in real life circumstances depend on the people who decide at any given time.

Other people could have other ideas, other preferences, other tolerance zones and so on.

We are here, now.

I understand what it was and what it is but I’m also very interested about what will come. Are you?

The times when the organization was founded are “past tense” and here my question is coming:

Do we want our organization to be geographically or some country centered?

It is clear where the initiative was but it also was meant to be “For All”.

“For All” has many facets and the way we organize is one of them.

Should there be a geographic center of this “For All”? I mean should there be a country in the center and all the others would revolve around it as the planets revolve around the sun?

Perhaps this question came into my mind, because I noticed that there is an International Circle but the country where the organization was founded does not have “a place” in this International Circle yet. Is it in another Ligue?

Is it somehow separated from the other countries? Is it more important than other countries? Does the voice of each territory matter equally or are some territories more important than others? I wonder if this is “power with” or “power over”? Should it stay like this or should it change?

Are some branches of a tree more important than the others? Are the branches of a tree treated differently or the same?

One other “alarm signal” was the fact that it has been used the expression “representatives from […] the more mature circles”. Is this statement in accordance with sociocracy? Should we create categories based on “maturity”? What exactly means “more mature circles”? Is there a policy regarding “the maturity of a circle”? If there is such a policy I would like to know it.

I went through an experience where I find out that there was no policy about the communication between circles, but I was informed about a “communication agreement” we didn’t previously consent to and I was asked to respect it first, then we could speak about it. Is this a habit in sociocracy in general or was it just a “rule” for me and the situation we went through? Was this manner to “solve” a certain communication “issue” a proof of sociocracy maturity from a “more mature circle”?

The initial intention was that an organization founded on sociocracy to be like an organism in which each organ functions autonomously but in which everything is interdependent. When something hurts, does the whole body know about the pain or does it only know the place where the pain manifests itself?

You see, I always try to understand what happens and why. That’s why I have questions.

Each question, by itself, asks for an answer. I guess the answers to my questions are on the air, coming to us …

You already know that what I’m saying is just my voice and that it doesn’t represent anyone else, right?

Your friend,
because I care

p.s. “Sociocracy For All” is a wonderful and generous concept that I fell in love with. How about stick to it and be able to build a fair environment, not just to have a “textbook” theoretical concept?

3 Likes
2

Hi Adrian.
Some of these questions came to my mind too.
My personal answer is: yes, we the people are different and in different stages of our growth in every field, even in sociocracy.
The collective intelligence of the organization will make it bloom or die.
The real obstacle I see is more language-centered than country-centered: a Sociocracy for All (English speakers) was a risk, Sociocracia Práctica is showing us that there is a path to avoid this risk; the new risk could be having different language-centered communities that don’t talk to each other; this line of thought make me think that designing the circle structure is an emerging theme, but let it emerge instead of designing it could be an interesting approach: power and power dynamics will always exist and it’s in our interest to model them as power-for and power-with, instead of power-over.
My newbie 2 cents.

4 Likes
3

Hi Roberto.

I have noticed many times that a quality conversation attracts inspiration. The fact that you read the post and gave feedback is already a gift for me. The idea is not that we all agree on a certain thing at a given moment, but to have a “table” where different issues are discussed and that there should be a flow of opinions capable of creating a new form or to revalidate the previous form, if that is the case.

On a personal level, connections exist or are formed only when we care, and this only manifests itself when there is an appropriate action. I think that “friendship” does not mean agreeing on all things and at any moment, but to care about the other actively, not passively.

One of the things I appreciate about you, Roberto, is that you care and choose your words so that what you say has the effect you want. Words can bring more understanding and relief, and we could all use them deliberately to build human relationships capable of supporting our ideals of making sociocracy known in every place and in every language.

Indeed, working together also requires talking to each other with a purpose.

Thank you.

p.s. I paid attention to the idea expressed by you to organize ourselves on the basis of language diversity, not geographical diversity. From this perspective, we still need a common language to understand each other, but then shouldn’t the “International Circle” be called the “Linguistic Diversity Circle” or something like this? And shouldn’t there be a corresponding English language circle, like any other language circle? Nothing can replace the dialogue and exchange of ideas by putting them into circulation.

Best regards to all those interested!

Your friend,
because I care

4 Likes
4

In fact I think that we not native English speakers use a simplified English as a sort of Esperanto, of lingua franca, and perhaps we don’t stress enough how much exhausting it could be for us to cope with spoken English, jargon and slang.
I work since around 15 years as a national expert in standardization. I manage to use English, French, Spanish and Italian during the same meeting with different colleagues, and my anglophone colleagues are used to talk a little slower and to use a simplified lexicon.
In ISO online meetings all become more difficult: not everyone has good quality microphones and not everyone seems aware of the presence of not native English speakers.
This kind of awareness isn’t always apparent in our SoFA events and there is another thread of discussion when the focus seems to be on the cost of online interpretation more than on understanding that language can be a barrier; interestingly the same theme has been discussed in reference to American Sign Language, while real-time subtitles (with all their limits) and a slower talking pace could be a more inclusive solution.

4 Likes
5

Right. I thought about “Esperanto” as well. If native English speakers would use the most common words and would speak at a slower pace, we could understand each other better.

On the other hand, I guess it would be ethical to have a circle for English native speakers as we have circles for French, Spanish, Portuguese, Hebrew, Romanian, Danish, Norwegian, German and, of course, we need circles for all the other languages, including Sign Languages.

Taking into consideration all these and the idea of ​​developing in a scalable and sustainable way, probably a general reorganization would be an important topic to discuss as soon as possible.

Of course, the final solution is not up to any of us, but it can be born from our contributions, from all of us, if we pay attention to these aspects taking into consideration the different opinions.

Roberto, it’s a pleasure to talk with you and to expand my own consciousness with your own thoughts and perspective.

Diversity scare some people, but for me, diversity is inspiring.

Your friend,
because I care

4 Likes