"Spreading Sociocracy in Languages" vs. "Spreading Sociocracy in Countries and Territories"

Sociocracy Discussion
, , , ,
1

“Spreading Sociocracy in Languages” vs. “Spreading Sociocracy in Countries and Territories”

Do you think “Language Diversity for Sociocracy” and “Territory Diversity for Sociocracy” should be in the same domain or would it be better to have one domain for “Spreading Sociocracy in Languages” and another domain for “Spreading Sociocracy in Countries and Territories”?

10+ personal considerations on this topic:

  1. One language is spoken by people living in many countries or teritories.

  2. In a certain country or territory there are many languages spoken.

  3. Languages and countries are two different items which do not necessarily overlap.

  4. Legal NGOs usually pertain to a country or territory.

  5. The accounting of an NGO belongs to a country or territory, not to a language.

  6. Obtaining grants is linked to a country / territorial legal entity, not to a language.

  7. There are no “Language Legal Entities” but “Country / Territory Legal Entities”.

  8. Spreading sociocracy in different languages is different from spreading sociocracy in different countries.

  9. Languages and territories will never overlap so they cannot naturally be part of the same domain and of the same sociocratic circles structure.

  10. Mantaining languages and countries in the same domain results in "power over’’ instead of “power with”.

  11. Spreading sociocracy in every corner of the society needs two different approaches and domains: one for “Spreading Sociocracy through Language Diversity” and another one for “Spreading Sociocracy in Countries and Territories”

5+ personal questions on this topic:

  1. Is it a proof of equivalence and equity to promote sociocracy in a certain country just in one language?

  2. Is it a proof of equivalence and equity to promote sociocracy in a language just in a certain country?

  3. Isn’t it normal to promote sociocracy in a certain country in more languages and to promote sociocracy in a certain language in more countries?

  4. Isn’t the direct consequence of equivalence and equity to have two different domains for spreading sociocracy, one for language diversity and another for country (territory) diversity?

  5. Isn’t it natural to have two different circle structures, one for language diversity and one for country (territory) diversity?

  6. Why not split the spreading of sociocracy in languages and countries (territories) in two different domains?

Please share your opinions on this matter.

Your friend
because I care

1 Like