Domination vs. Self-determination
Please check out the comments after each blog entry.
My friend John asked me what hurdles I see to sociocracy being widely adopted. I see three hurdles that have to be crossed. The first hurdle is just people finding out about it. The movie will help some with that. The second hurdle is then understanding what sociocracy means and why it is a better form of governance. Hopefully, I’ll be able to explain that in the movie as well. The third hurdle is reconditioning ourselves out of the only mindset we know right now: domination. Also, some people, especially those with power, are resistant to it. That is, some people have to learn to think outside the domination box and others don’t want to. This has proved to be a challenge for the sociocracy center in the Netherlands. It’s one thing I’m fascinated to study and try to solve. I’ve been calling this ‘domination vs. self-determination.’
Right now this is the big issue for me. I had a hard time coming up with a word that meant the opposite of dominance. I toyed with cooperative, freedom-based, non-violent, ahimsa, but they all require more explanation – we can’t just say them and everyone knows what we’re talking about. In the same way, we don’t think in these terms because we don’t talk about it.
Then I found (searchwords: linear, circular, domination) http://edocs.ub.unimaas.nl/loader/file.asp?id=262, an article by Georges Romme at the University of Maastricht where Gerard Endenburg teaches each week. He used the word self-determination. I like that and will start using it. I want to slip it into my subtitle ‘Beyond Democracy: Domination Versus Self-determination.’ Or ‘Beyond Democracy to True Self-determination.’ Something like that. What do you think?
Domination, by definition, doesn’t include giving power to those affected by decisions. A boss may consult others, but, in the end, the decision is the boss’s. Without guaranteeing a say in decisions to others affected, those decisions will end up ignoring people’s input and desires. It’s not too unreasonable to draw the conclusion that domination necessarily leads to violence – most of the time only subtle, but nonetheless, violence. We could almost say that it is violence, but the decisions made don’t always go against someone’s needs and desires.
Sociocracy helps its participants grow out of domination. To understand how we have to look at what skills people need to develop in order to use it. For this we can look at why many sociocratic experiments have been discontinued. The reasons include:
-
The organization couldn’t create an environment where the participants felt safe enough to speak their minds honestly (without duress).
-
Participants, even though provided a safe environment, are still conditioned to behave as subordinates.
-
There can be peer pressure to go along with a proposal that might be objectionable.
-
Someone with power feels threatened.
The changes people need to make:
-
Superiors have to create safe environments free of duress.
-
Participants have to proactively exercise influence in their organization.
-
People have to differentiate themselves from others and speak up for themselves.
-
Superiors have to buy in.
Encouraging these changes has been the biggest challenge for the Dutch Sociocracy Center to grapple with. Making this transition is crucial to moving from a system based in domination to a system based on shared interests. We have found that when people have a sustainably safe environment for a long enough period, they begin to act differently and become more proactive and differentiated. This, I believe, is the crucible of freedom. Sociocracy gives us a tool, but we can’t use it without creating the freedom to speak honestly. Sociocracy shows us clearly what freedom is and that we need to actively create it.
What do you think? Please add your comments!
September 2nd, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Hey Ted,
Just found your site and love the idea. Couple of comments:
1) I agree with the three hurdles we have to overcome as individuals to adopt this type of governance, but would add a fourth (or maybe just expand on the third a little). As civilized humans, we need to overcome the emotional and mental damage our society has done to us. For instance, in modern Aboriginal/Indigenous societies in Canada, there is a serious problem with corruption amongst band leaders. Because most of these people have been so damaged by colonization, until they “heal,” it doesn’t matter whether they have the ability to govern themselves - they are too dysfunctional to do it. The same could be said about all people, and leaders, in general.
2) Keeping on the these of Aboriginal/Indigenous peoples, I wonder how much you’ve studied pre-contact Aboriginal/Indigenous styles of governance, which were most definitely based on consensus forms governance.
Again, love the site and look forward to reading more and seeing the movie.
September 2nd, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Peter,
I don’t know much about pre-contact peoples. I agree that we’re all dysfunctional now. A friend of mine was reading about shame and the plan to heal from shame sounded amazingly similar to sociocracy.
The plan outlined in the book was like this:
Healing from shame:
1) Get help from others - meet
2) Challenge the shame - make a proposal
3) Set positive goals based on - decide
i) Humanity - inclusivity, diversity
ii) Humility - equivalence
iii) Autonomy - differentiation, consent
iv) Competence - limits
4) Take action - do
5) Measure
I added the words to the right of the - . I believe that a sociocratic circle could work well as a healing circle. John Buck related a story to me about Gilles Charest and some friends forming a healing circle for a friend who had attempted suicide.
What I’m trying to say is that we none of us are totally prepared to operate perfectly in a sociocratic environment, but if we create that environment first, maybe we then can learn to heal and function well.
It won’t be easy, but we’re not going to develop these skills without starting and creating the environment for them.
BTW, Peter, are you on my mailing list? If not, can I add you?
teddidread@earthlink.net
September 2nd, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Hi Ted,
What I’m trying to say is that we none of us are totally prepared to operate perfectly in a sociocratic environment, but if we create that environment first, maybe we then can learn to heal and function well.
I understand what you are saying, my fear is that without some healing first, the structure won’t matter. If people don’t have the emotional skills or are too dysfunctional, they just might not be able to operate within the existing structure. I guess it’s a chicken and egg thing - which came first, healthy people or healthy governance?