should we try sociacratic organization?
i believe this question has been posed lately within OMI, and has been proposed and accepted by the Board of Directors of OMI. my initial reaction to sociocracy is cool, i’m down with decentralization. consent based circles, what could possibly go wrong? therein is one problem, consent. more on this later.
what is sociocracy?
the simple definition: a form of government that is based on decision making among citizens of equal social status using principles of social interaction
right there, form of government. ok, i’m not feeling so hot about this. then hit me with equal social status. while in our tiny group we are equals, but in the greater scheme of things, we cannot say that we have equal social status.
how does sociocracy work?
very simply, like this:
seems fair enough, except that sociocracy makes a distinction between consent and consensus in order to emphasize that circle decisions are not expected to produce “a consensus”. it doesn’t mean agreement or solidarity. in sociocracy consent is defined as “no objections,” and objections are based on one’s ability to work toward the aims of the organization. Members discussing an idea in consent based governance commonly ask themselves if it is “good enough for now, safe enough to try”. if not, then there is an objection, which leads to a search for an acceptable adaptation of the original proposal to gain consent. in sociocracy, consent is defined and practiced as a decision-making method within a sophisticated governance method that can support a complex organizational structure. essentially, to me, sociocracy can lead to a mob rule situation, and i’m not real fond of rulers. so far no one has asked me what i think of sociocracy or to take part in it. it seems to have a launch failure for several reasons, perhaps (?) because of lack of understanding or buy in as one.
so you want anarchy?
well, yes, though so far it has been problematic, which, again, i will discuss later.
what is anarchy?
the simple definition: a lack of government in any country or state; no governing authority what so ever
and i will add lack of government in any city, neighborhood or collective.
how does anarchy work?
if you are familiar with the original occupy groups, this is how anarchy works. i will discuss what i consider “pure” anarchy, that is, not the anarcho-‘s. anarchists believe in self governance and self responsibility. what does this mean to an anarchist community or collective? decisions that affect the individual are made by the individual, and the individual takes responsibility for direct action and the outcome of that decision. this is done by consensus decision making, which is not necessarily unanimous, but definitely a vast majority, much more than 51% of the vote. as an example, there is a proposal on the table, and i am neutral, either by not being able to understand possible outcomes or not agreeing in the entirety, and i don’t know that i will be able to take the action necessary, or don’t want responsibility for the decision, i will abstain, and typically i am offered the chance to make an amendment to the proposal to gain consent. i think this is how occupy madison has been successful in the past. there is the problem, responsibility, that is currently taking place within OMI currently and especially within the village. someone will make a proposal, everyone will vote aye, but then the aye voters are not taking responsibility for action, and even more harmful, there is an attempt to divert responsibility to other people or some uncontrollable force. this is why anarchy is failing to work anymore, and possibily the cause for a desire for sociocracy. right now there is this really weird mix going on that isn’t sustainable or, in my opinion, healthy.
what does future organization and governance look like? we shall see as time passes.
Gene's Community Ramblings 