Green Social Structures

What are the benefits and drawbacks of green social structures?

First, let's take a look at what green social structures are, by comparing them with the quintessential structures of other memes.

In a video from the Art of Hosting Integral gathering in 2007, Tim Merry discusses the various organizational structures favored by different memes. To briefly summarize, tribal purple prefers the camp fire circle, which is great for sharing stories. Power-focused red and hierarchical blue prefer a triangular structure: one person is at the top, and there are many people under them. Bureaucratic orange, coming at the problem of organizational forms with the idea of multiple categories, prefers a "square" structure involving lots of boxes (i.e. objects) which relate to each other.

Pluralist green returns to a circular organization, in which no one is "higher" than anyone else and the potential oppression of categorization is done away with. One key difference between green circles and purple circles is presumed sameness. In a purple circle, the participants are assumed to be the same, perhaps members of the same tribe. In a green circle, the participants are assumed to be different, with diverse backgrounds and perspectives.

With that in mind, let's consider the advantages and disadvantages of green circles:

As with purple circles, green circles are great for sharing stories. In light of that, they're also good for comparing experiences. Similarly, they're great for examining and deconstructing perspectives, whether individual or cultural. They're also well suited to generating lots of different ideas. In short, they're great for discussing.

On the other hand, a green circle is a not very well suited for making decisions, since a decision in this format requires consensus, yet a diverse group of people is likely to have a hard time reaching one. Due to the need for consensus, a group structured as a circle will often have a very hard time taking coordinated collective action, and is also not well suited to activities that require shared thinking that builds on itself. These two factors make the green circle a very poor place to do either theory or practice.

Furthermore, the pluralist circle structure is anathema to the ideas of expertise and teaching, since it systematically denies any authority or extra weight to the perspective of someone with greater knowledge, experience, or aptitude. As a result, experts tend to shy away from circular groups that involve non-experts, preferring either non-circular groups or association with other experts. In the rare circumstances in which experts do involve themselves with mixed green discussion groups, they tend to participate in one of two ways. Either they use the group to create relationships that will continue outside the circle context (where they can resume functioning as experts and teachers), or they take an unofficial or unacknowledged expert role, in which they act and are treated as de facto authorities while ostensibly remaining "the same" as the other group members.

For some topics and some purposes, a green circle is a good choice. Some topics are interesting and worthwhile to discuss -- particularly those that primarily concern personal opinion and perception. Other topics lend themselves more readily to being taught or presented by experts, and in these cases, other group structures are more efficacious. A green circle is a great place to shoot the breeze, have a beer, and restore your sense of unity-in-diversity, but not particularly good for getting things done, building new theories and methods, or transmitting skills and knowledge.