Language Diversity vs. Geographical Spread of Sociocracy

Language Diversity vs. Geographical Spread of Sociocracy

Personal observations:

  1. a language is spoken by people permanently or temporarily (at work for example) settled in several countries (not just in one);

  2. in a country, people speak several languages, not just one;

Quote from WDWD:

My dream is to bring the skill of self-governance into every corner of society.

Excellent! I joined this too.

Ever since I discovered sociocracy (and nothing is accidental, is it?) I’ve been dreaming of it too.

It’s amazing how contagious dreams can be sometimes.

As we already know, good intentions are not enough:


In order to be who we want to be, we need systems around us that support our integrity, best intentions and allow for us to act accordingly.”

Do we already have a system? I guess we have one.

Is it already perfect? I don’t think so. Everything is perfectible.

Is it good enough for now? It was certainly good enough till now.

So what should we do to keep improving it? I guess we have to scrutinize the future as much as possible.

Is it possible to know the future? I don’t think so?

So what should we do in this situation? I guess we should invent the future, based on our expectations and intentions.

Is it possible? I think so, if we take into consideration more dimensions, evaluate the past and optimize our strategies for the future.

You might say, we already have a SoFA’s theory of change.

This is fine indeed! So we already have something to work on.

As stated in the SoFA Theory of Change (ToC):


Changing governance requires support, and lots of it.

What are the elements of a Theory of Change (ToC)? One of the elements is to be


achievable – we have the necessary resources to carry out the intervention”

It’s obvious that we need resources (financial capital as well as human capital).

People discuss and share ideas above countries.

What about incomes, grants etc.?

As I know (maybe I’m not quite well informed) income and expenses are country related. Also, the legal entities are country related.

Reflecting on these issues, I wonder if taking into account the spread of sociocracy based on language criteria (language diversity) is a sufficiently comprehensive dimension or would it be better to add the geographical (territorial) dimension “to bring the skill of self-governance into every corner of society”?

If we have to improve SoFA structure, what if we already think about this transformation as a whole, taking into account several dimensions?

Also, how about taking care that when we distribute the decision-making power, we also pay attention to the distribution of the power of influence between the “center” of the organization and its “periphery”?

Otherwise, we will only move from the “top of the pyramid” to the “center of the structure”.

Of course, it would not be efficient nor possible for everyone to decide on everything, but I think it is worth promoting “a culture of dialogue” more intensively.

Basically, if I remember correctly, in MVOS it is stated:


Those who come with less agency get support to step into more agency. Those who come with more sense of agency contribute towards the whole without diminishing anyone else’s power.



What kind of world do we want to live in? The way we answer this question is: We want to live in a world where people support each other, consider each other and help each other meet needs. A collaborative world.”

Your friend,
because I care

p.s. In the picture there is an organizational structure proposal to think about. I would appreciate any feedback from you. Best wishes!

1 Like

Language Diversity vs. Geographical Spread of Sociocracy

  • Language Helping Circle is related to the Helping Circle (HC).
  • Language Circles are circles related to the Language Helping Circle.
  • Country Circles are related to Zone Circle (ZC).
  • Languages Helping Circle could make Help-Desk Agreements with all of the Country Circles for the languages spoken in those countries.
  • Legal Entities, income and expenses are country related and they need a geographical (country & territories) related structure.
  • For example, in Spain are many Romanians who are already official settled there.
  • On the other hand, Spanish is spoken not just in Spain but also in Mexico.
  • The same thing is for Portuguese spoken not just in Portugal but in Brazil as well.
  • French is spoken not only in France, but also in Morocco, and so on …
  • In fact, each language is spoken in many countries, and in each countries there are many languages that are spoken.
  • That’s why I think we need two different structures: one dedicated to language diversity and another one dedicated to geographical zones (countries & territories).

  • Please take into consideration this aspects for a deeper analysis, to be able to synthesize a proposal as relevant as possible, which is not only good enough for now, but also offers a perspective of development and efficient operation in the long term.

Your friend,
because I care

Language Diversity vs. Geographical Spread of Sociocracy

Local means Geographical Related (countries & territories).

Language Diversity is different from Local (country & territories)

Your friend,
because I care

Language Diversity vs. Geographical Spread of Sociocracy

I guess that SoPra should choose to be a part of Zone Circle (geographically related to Europe). There should be a Spanish Language Circle as a child of Language Helping Circle as well. The Fiscal Circles would be those circles related to Zone Circle, which are geographically (country & territory) related.

Your friend,
because I care

Language Diversity vs. Geographical Spread of Sociocracy

I guess there should be two different structures:

  • one related to geography (countries and territories) which will provide legal entities, grands, income and expenses.

  • the second one should be diversity language related and should provide access to sociocracy in different languages, regardless of the country where there are speakers of that language.

Your friend,
because I care

Language Diversity vs. Geographical Spread of Sociocracy

In the actual SoFA structure, I guess the GC should become the Helping Circle.

A new structure should be put in place that would be Geographical related zones, countries and territories.

2 links from ZC, HC and MC would form the new GC.

For now would be six members in the GC.

There is room for other one or two significant operational circles to be connected to the GC in the future (if really needed) or maybe one or two guests to each meeting, depending on the topics that will be discussed.

Your friend,
because I care

Language Diversity vs. Geographical Spread of Sociocracy

Languages ​​and countries generate two structures that cannot overlap.

A language can be spoken by people settled in different countries,

In a certain country, several languages ​​could be spoken.

This is the reason why I think that these two aspects (language and teritory) should be represented by two different structures.

I guess it would be useful to have a structure formed on geographical principles (countries and territories), and another formed on the basis of languages.

Of course, like any two circles, the two structures could cooperate.

Your friend,
because I care