Interdependence, and synergy between movements
Humans have always been interdependent, with each other and with the rest of nature. This is true even when we’re not aware of it. Yet, with climate collapse, for the first time in history, it is impossible to ignore this truth. What we do, no matter where we are, has impact everywhere else. Because this has been forgotten — with instead short-sighted, simplistic and mechanistic thinking, we are where we are now.
This piece of writing is my thinking of what I think is important in the face of that. I assume and hope that my thinking will change and evolve — hopefully a lot during The Choice Conference which I am looking forward to attending in Madrid in October 2019.
Indra’s web and interdependence
To describe the concept of interdependence, the image of Indra’s web helped me. It’s an old metaphor, almost 2000 years. This is Alan Watts’ description of Indra’s web:
“Imagine a multidimensional spider’s web in the early morning covered with dew drops. And every dew drop contains the reflection of all the other dew drops. And, in each reflected dew drop, the reflections of all the other dew drops in that reflection. And so ad infinitum. That is the Buddhist conception of the universe in an image.”
Interdependence. I am reflected in you, and you are reflected in me. I imagine the pearls as nested systems. Every being is a pearl. Every group and every organization is a pearl. I find it a wonderful thought experiment to imagine and experience the world around me like that. My different voices. My family. My town. My state. The plant. The planetary system. Interdependent in their system and consisting of interdependent parts. Wow!
Sociocracy was designed to express interdependence. Circles are like pearls. Each circle is authorized to act — they shine on their own. And yet all circles are linked — pearls that make their contribution to another circle, connected by people in linking roles, make sure each pearl is part of the whole and letting each other shine. If one circle suffers, the whole system will feel it. It goes along with ownership as well: a sociocratic organization can’t be owned; it owns itself.
In the thought experiment of Indra’s web, it is obvious that organizations are interdependent with their outside. In sociocracy, stakeholder circles are linked to the board (mission circle or top circle) because all voices need to be considered. There is also interdependence between working circles and the “outside” world. Clients interact with the organizations, and they change the organization and the organization changes them.
Beyond formal linking, there are of course all the formal and informal interdependencies. Employees interact with the organization and change it, and the organization changes them. But also the janitor’s husband, the CEO’s wife, their children, the cafe across the street where the marketing department has lunch on Fridays. If the company goes bankrupt, it will affect the family of the janitor, it will affect her nanny, it will affect the nanny’s family and her food coop that loses a member. The designer that swaps out a heteronormative photo with an image of a gay couple changes the teenager’s life that sees the commercial, empowering him to shine in an unconcealed way. Businesses also benefit from the world around them, in physical objects, and ideas — the commons, and what the predominant culture calls “private property” and “intellectual property” (questionable concepts if we think about interdependence).
The synergy of movements
One human alone can’t change much — that’s why it’s good to have a mix of people on a team. When we set up a team for a project, we know that we need different skill sets on the team. The team will be most resilient and effective if members pay attention to different aspects while keeping an eye on the project’s aim together. The planner in a team is just as necessary as the people person who pays attention to the social-emotional well-being. Their focus areas are not in competition; they are complementary — if they cooperate.
I think that changing the systems that surround us requires not only a team of people but synergy of movements. We need some movements to pay attention to reducing carbon emissions, some need to work putting carbon in the ground, some will have energy around trash in the ocean and biodiversity. All is needed, at the same time.
We can’t play human rights against climate against biodiversity against wealth inequality against racial justice.
I am still witnessing many conversations among change makers who argue about what needs to be done most badly. “Instead of trying to put carbon into the soil, we should focus on getting to the root and reduce emissions.” I wish there was more “yes, and” thinking instead of competition between causes. I think of all the movements as pearls in Indra’s web. They all influence each other and they let each other shine and be reflected an infinite number of times.
In order to achieve that, it’s not the thought leaders that need to talk to “weave movements”. Movements are woven in billions of different places, between people who encounter new systems and pass them on, blending them with whatever they have used before that makes sense in their context.
Enters pragmatism
Even though everything is important at the same time, we can’t pay attention to a lot of things at the same time. I imagine my grandchildren asking, “so, what exactly were you thinking every time you threw plastic into the trash bin. You knew it wouldn’t ever decompose, right?” And I imagine myself answering, “yes, true. I knew that but I wasn’t really conscious of it. I was too busy teaching governance. I had no energy for trash in the oceans.”
It’s just a reality of our physical and mental lives that we have to make choices. Resources are abundant and scarce at the same time. We do what we can and we trust that things will come together from all directions, like nerve endings that will eventually touch.
So now what?
So given that, what do we do? In my mind, there are three things that I am paying attention to. It’s the nature of things that I’ll have blindspots — that is why I am going to Madrid to have people with other angles point them out to me!
- Balance and complexity: We need to hold the complexity and interdependence of people and issues, i.e. not put one issue over the other. All systems that strive to hold everyone’s needs equally are needed. No competition, no disregarding other people’s efforts. For example, if you strongly believe that social enterprises are going to save the world, you might be right. If you believe that the essential piece is meditation and inner work to change the world, you are probably right. If you think that unleashed capitalism, patriarchy and colonialism are the heart of all evil and that they need to be dealt with in order to address climate change, you are probably right. If you think more dancing and potlucks will make people more prone to change, you are probably right. We need all of it. Just one thing we don’t need, and that’s competition of causes and frameworks. I imagine all the causes and movements and projects as pearls, reflecting each other and making each other shine. That’s what I see happening already, and it’s a wonderful image to think about. Keep in mind that if someone is putting their energy elsewhere, forming a pearl there, they are not taking away your pearl’s beauty.
Every system will have blindspots (for example by dehumanizing or dismissing entire parts of the population or of the planet) because all systems are based on models and they are never all-encompassing. Yet, systems are the magic that helps us grasp and act in complexity so we still need them. Some of the “new” systems are imperfect and good enough and a substantial “update” compared to the predominant systems. The work I am interested in is to continuously replace systems with systems that encompass more nuances and complexity, and are more balanced ethically. They help us to integrate more views and to put a more holistic perspective into concrete action. Knowing they will never be perfect shouldn’t hold us back. For that reason, my energy is not so much in improving (or owning!) those new systems (of course, some improvement always comes along with it) but my personal interest is in the next step: making things accessible. - Do-ability and ease:
I am a big believer that we as a collective have moved on what the “how might we” phase. We have pretty good systems available to us. Now it’s about putting them to use (instead of searching for an even more perfect system). Since we can’t pay attention to everything, we will make choices. We’re all stretched thin, in a state of individual and collective overwhelm. And that’s not all bad: if we paid attention to everything all the time, then we wouldn’t be able to act at all. So let’s not beat ourselves up about it.
What we can do in the face of overwhelm is to pay it forward. Show up and make it easy for our movement teammates. Pick what you’re good at, identify and mature systems that are more balanced and make those systems applicable for more people with more ease.
That’s why, for example, Sociocracy For All is putting energy into accessibility and easy adoption of sociocracy. While I love and admire home-made governance systems, I don’t think it’s economical to re-invent the wheel in each organization. Yet, note that I am not saying that proponents of homemade or alternative systems (like Holacracy) are wrong or lesser. There is no competition.
Another aspect of this is creative commons licensing — in healthy teamwork, you wouldn’t want teammates to hide information from each other, right? So let’s not do that to each other. Keep information open and make it easy to access. It’s the 21st century, after all. - Connection and synergy: Like any team will create more synergy between efforts when they talk more, movements have a lot of synergy with each other that they are not making use of yet. Learn about other pearls so they can shine in you while still shining as your own pearl.
In Sociocracy For All, we’re actively trying to weave together things that go well together, like non-violent communication and sociocracy, permaculture and sociocracy, lean and sociocracy. We need to understand each other better, without judgment and without condescending each other’s solutions. We see the pearls around us— you see others.
Your peals and our pearls can remain individual pearls or they might merge — in an infinite number of pearls reflecting each other, it doesn’t matter whether they merge or not. Integrated systems are useful for ease and usability but the goal is not to have one big pearl.
See you in Madrid!
I will bring three things when I come to Madrid:
- Awareness that everyone’s contribution is needed and that I know only a fraction of what there is to know.
- The offer to contribute what I am good at — experience with organizational governance. I am also good at breaking down complex thoughts into digestible bits.
- Willingness to hear and be influenced by what other people bring.
If this article inspires you, why don’t you come to Madrid so we can chat and I get to hear you? If you can’t, send me an email (ted@sociocracyforall.org) and/or participate in the asynchronous connections after the conference.
—
Ted Rau,
Sociocracy For All (ted@sociocracyforall.org)
