Language Diversity vs. Geographical Spread of Sociocracy
Personal observations:
-
a language is spoken by people permanently or temporarily (at work for example) settled in several countries (not just in one);
-
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:
Quote:
“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):
Quote:
“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
Quote:
“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:
Quote:
“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.”
and
Quote:
“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!