Response number one:
"I'm
not sure that I would feel comfortable in group relationships. It didn't
work in the 60s, at least not what I saw, anyway, or experienced. I've also
seen intentional communities here rife with internal division, and so on."
I would like to respond to each one of the
several issues expressed here and then summarize.
1. "group relationships"
Actually, very few of us are hermits. Even if
we don't have to "work", in all likelihood we will be around people, even if
it's just a trip out to go shopping. And for those who do have to work, few
are solitary artist's or craftspeople. In fact, it probably could be stated
with some accuracy that the majority work in businesses or institutions
where there are quite a number of people. No matter what the interaction,
there is a "relationship" to all others in our lives. The fact is we are in
"group relations" all the time. What I think of it as, is agreements and
expectations. Those agreements and expectations define and clarify our
relationships. And I might add, our "relationships" do indeed require
clarity and definition.
2. "it didn't work in the 60s"
So why do people often (have or hear of)
bad experiences with small groups who call themselves "intentional
communities"?
It is amazing the amount of training
(years obviously), learning, and/or experience we fully accept as
necessary to acquire a skill or fill a certain position, and yet when it
comes to considering something as outside our regular experience as creating
a whole new culture or socio-economic paradigm, for some reason we somehow
think it's simply programmed into our DNA. Nothing could be further from the
truth.
Coming from a highly individualized, family
centered and exploitative economic system (the everyone for themselves
paradigm) we don't have a clue how to share resources, or think of ourselves
as a "community"; maybe as a family, but not as a community. We don't
have a clue how to get from living the highly extravagant, unethical and
oftentimes addictive lives to something simple, cooperative, close to nature
and ethical. We don't read about it and we don't even spend much time by
ourselves thinking about it.
We simply burst into a room with others and
expect that we are going to reach some sort of consensus about "community".
Or we enter into the relationship with some faith that it will eventually
work out, which of course it rarely does.
The other problem with the "60s" is that it
was primarily young, naïve, immature, drug addicted (practically kids)
attempting to create an entirely new culture and socioeconomic paradigm. I
am convinced that any serious revolution of this sort must be led by the
oldest among us, not the youngest. There simply isn't the wisdom and life
experience. The young are necessary, and their imagination is of course
equal to the older folks, but not their wisdom and experience.
And all must study and read and seriously
contemplate what it all means.
3. "I've seen intentional communities here
rife with internal division, and so on."
I've sort of addressed this with number two.
But what about present day, and older folks and the problems they run into
in so-called "intentional communities"? I think the primary question here to
ask is: are these truly representative of the socio-economic paradigm we
would call "community"? I believe if these so-called "communities" were held
up to the light of critical analysis they would be seen not as "community"
at all, but something much more resembling the "extended family" paradigm.
"Family" tends to be small, egalitarian, and tied together not by ethics and
goals, but simply by the need to survive and by ties of blood or love (love
being primarily a statement of loyalty, sentimentality and willingness to
submit to either the high authority of the family or family leader (s), or
the basic goal of survival).
To me the IC.org website is not the promise
of what's to come, but the nightmare. I say this because it seems to me
perhaps 95% of what's on that website is about "family" and not about
community. But what's worse is it's also about exploitative capitalism and
who owns and controls what or the land and natural resources.
People with land and other resources seeking
to share the land and resources with others in community? No. It doesn't
appear that way at all. These so-called "communities" are really families
desperately clinging to a little chunk of land and seeking others join them
in their desperate bid for survival. Also there a lot of organic farms and
other businesses who are seeking cheap labor.....and company.... "misery
loves company".
4. It sounds like the old
Fourierist
communites in the 19th century
This is like saying an inefficient
incandescent light bulb is the same thing as a highly efficient LED light.
This approach is to highlight every attempt at improving the human
condition, rather than focusing on the desired goal that is being attempted
to achieve. It is like focusing on one of the thousands of experiments that
Edison did trying to invent the light bulb or battery and pointing out what
a failure it was. When all it really was was another experiment in a
continuum of experiments leading to eventual success.
In this light, it is important that we do not
give up; that we keep on trying. When comments like these are made, it seems
clear to me there simply is no intent, no interest and perhaps because there
is no courage, and no true caring for the welfare of others.
In conclusion:
True "community" to me means large (in the
hundreds), nonattachment to place, some cooperative work, sharing of
expensive man-made resources, sharing of natural resources. And just as
importantly, individual liberation and freedom being a if not the primary
goal, and clear, simple yet profound ethics shared.
The "million-dollar question" or answer is to
be found, I believe, in the design, or theoretical basis which very much
involves the ethics and goals the community is to be based upon. Now of
course, here is where we find the problem, 99% of people have no interest in
discussing the ethics, or what the theoretical socio-economic basis the
community would be.....and more specifically, why.
People want to immediately talk about "how
are we going to get the land, where is the money coming from, what kind of
buildings are we building and where are we going to do it...and so on and so
forth?". These questions are totally premature and haven't a ghost of a
chance of being answered until the other, previously mentioned fundamental
issues are decided upon.
Response number two:
[top]
The following response was from someone
who is not seeking
the type of proposed solution to meet our collective challenges or personal
needs this website suggests. It was merely from a friend of the family who happens to
be liberal, and was curious enough to actually take a look after I shared
its URL with her.
I share her response which she
e-mailed to my mother, nevertheless, because it is a common
response.....even if it is one not personally voiced all that often; people tend to be
polite and kind, which is nice of course. Or, as is often the case, many are
not
really interested enough to actually read what is written. It would seem for
us to be able to get beyond a few words which we assume we know the
meaning of (and trigger a rather automatic reaction or assumption)
is difficult for us. Yet to be explores, pioneers, and visionaries one must
be able to see realities and possibilities beyond the narrow definitions
which words often represent; and be willing to leave site of the shore.
Following this persons comment below is my response.
I did look at the
Cooperative Community website Chris gave us, and so did Dan. It must be
my age, world-weariness, or hopefully my love-inspired spiritual path,
but I can say I have no desire for reinventing the world that way.
Indeed, I wish those builders well. Much can be learned from earnest
attempts at community, and humanity is blessed by every effort to
improve. I truly wish Chris well, however his journey unfolds. He is a
very interesting person; we should talk more.
I think we humans
are half-heavenly creatures having an earthly experience. We are
tremendously creative beings, capable of all the goodness and all the
evils we can imagine. We evolve. I've come to the conclusion it is not
up to me to fix the world: it is enough to create one good day, inwardly
and outwardly, since every thought and every action affects the whole. I
deeply trust we are guided, individually and collectively, though it
takes some growing and attunement to become intelligently aware and
responsive to such guidance. In the meantime we struggle and become as
best we can
With all due
respect to this person and the majority of others who share this view, the
following is my response:
If one would read books like
Millennium Dawn by Glen Martin, or
books by Erich Fromm, one would realize that simply acting as an individual
is not enough. Certainly individual action and responsibility are critical,
yet surely this is only ONE HALF of the total
equation. One half is one half. It is not the whole. And
the whole is what is required for the changes necessary to bring about
socio-economic justice, a beautiful environment, a quality of life for all
with as much freedom as possible, and as great a state of health that is
possible, the end of war and the end of crime.
Nothing less than the whole will
ever do. That is why nothing ever changes..... fundamentally.....and in
fact, seems to be getting worse.
This looking at the world through one's own position in it, or
particular state of satisfaction, or even dissatisfaction....can be profoundly
distorting. That one is content or
even discontent is of little consequence. So what is of consequence?
What is of consequence are the ethics or norms we all shared
together and the goals we share with those whom we have a close relationship
with. What is of consequence, is the complex causes-and-effects which all
human actions conform to, effect and are affected by.
People who believe that individual action is enough do not and
cannot think deeply and critically about ethics. People operating through
satisfaction or dissatisfaction are looking at the world through distorted
lenses; they are looking at the world only through a perspective which is
totally dependent upon their position, possessions and their own interests.
If their position and possessions are adequate, they are satisfied. If their
position and possessions are inadequate, they are dissatisfied.
What about anyone else? What about
everything else? What about any one of a multitude of
issues such as our environment, pollution, ill health, crime and war? It seems to me, those
who only see life simply as something of their own making are ignoring the
complex interrelationships (personal as well a societal) going on all the
time. Indeed, we are never separated from the whole. A great teacher Jiddu
Krishnamurti often said "that if one cannot see, cannot feel one's own
personal responsibility for the way the world is, one does not see at all".
We, as individuals, simply do not exist in a vacuum. We exist
in a culture. And the culture we live in, to a greater or lesser degree,
defines our relationships. We exist in complex interrelationships between
ourselves and others (socially, economically and ethically) and our
environment. Without a shared culture, shared ethics or norms and a shared
goal we become more and more separate from each other, isolated and
ultimately it might be argued, divorced from nature......and some say
separated from ourselves.
I do not mean to be harsh, but I believe there are words for
for this sort of exclusively individualistic perspective.....when all that
matters is us as individuals.....that we should best function as isolated
individuals. I would call it an excuse not to care, to not have to do
anything "different" or "scary". I would call it bourgeois and an excuse to
be only concerned about oneself. And I would say it is a "spiritual path"
devoid of any real spirituality. There may be a small amount of love for a
few little things and a few individuals, but I find it hard to believe there
is much real concern, real "love for one's neighbor as thyself", much real
love and concern for humanity, for nature.......which ultimately results in
a tragically dog eat dog world lacking in any great amount of respect,
interest and love in or for one another and a trashing of the environment.
Our socio-economic system cannot
and will never be changed (which is based on exploitative economics i.e.
usury) simply by the actions of isolated individuals. Social
circumstance and
economic realities, imply by their very nature a relationship between
individuals and those individuals to their environment and the other
individuals in one's society. Individualists always, or so it seems, have a
way of pretending or ignoring the kind of circumstances (position or
possessions) that formed the basis for an "individuals" well-being.
The liberal individualist says
"wouldn't it be nice if everyone had (or if the government provided
everyone with) some sort of wonderful
job and there
was universal healthcare for everyone". The conservative individualist
says "wouldn't it be nice if everyone was more responsible for themselves". I say: wouldn't it be nice if we all
had access to a wonderful, interesting
LIFE (not just
a #*!#*!*## job!) and everyone had easy access
(provided by and for ourselves) to the
best quality organically raised food.
Response Number Three
[top]
"For me personally, any kind of
communal living is out of the question, as I really need to be alone or just
with my partner and family (if any)."
This is a very common sentiment, of
course. But what does it really mean?
For one thing, coming at "communal
living" with this attitude reveals that the person expressing it, in all
likelihood, has never truly considered, in depth, what the possibilities or
benefits are regarding communal or cooperative living, nor has reflected
deeply on what I call the "agreements and expectations" that go into giving
our particular socio-economic culture its structure, both physically,
psychologically and economically (or practically). And also, and this
is very important, expressing this view reveals that one is not particularly
dissatisfied with the way things are.
There are two basic perspectives
regarding dissatisfaction. One is the personal, and the other is social or
ecological consequences. So, one could be satisfied on a personal level, but
dissatisfied on the social or ecological consequence side. And vice a versa.
In order to consider, seriously,
cooperative or communal living one must be dissatisfied on both levels.
And there is quite a bit more I can
say about this:
There are aspects of a man and a
woman being "alone" with each other, isolated physically and
socio-economically which make for a situation which is ripe for subtle
domination and control; either the man over the women, or the women over the
man.
The question also might come up
"alone" to do what? Constantly working and struggling to survive? Certainly
we know (and largely accept) that "life can be a lot of work and cost
a lot of money". But, what if this assumption is largely true only because
we are living as isolated couples or family units which are extremely
inefficient and so ultimately extravagant and expensive? What if we lived
quite a bit more communally and cooperatively and shared expensive
resources? Maybe life wouldn't be a lot of work or cost a lot of money at
all.
It's an interesting question to
contemplate: who is resisting this much better quality-of-life and why?
"I really need to be alone, or just
with my partner and family" Consider that unless one is independently
wealthy, on some sort of disability, or one is running a personal business
at home, it is extremely unlikely one is going to be "alone" very much at
all, really. And it is very likely that one's children will be going off to
a public school.
And, let's consider this. Let's say
we have kind of a traditional male-female, nuclear family paradigm going on.
And the man goes off to work while the wife stays home. There are two issues
regarding this, one is: is this really the life the husband desires? And
number two is: is the wife realistically going to want to stay home alone
all day by herself?
My point to all this is, in reality
the so-called private lives of the nuclear family are not very private at
all.
Is it that one feels one has to
have one's own kitchen and eat only with one's spouse and children? One
could very easily eat with one's spouse and children every night and every
meal even in a communal situation.
And my final point is: what are the
costs to maintain this private nuclear family? And who is going to pay for
them? And if one truly wanted to spend time alone, in my opinion, it is only
in a communal living situation, at least the one I propose, that one could
"afford" to do that. The reality, in almost all other situations,
(because of the economic demands) is that it is highly unlikely
(at least for those who are younger and without trust funds) that one
will be spending very much time alone.
And, if it's about being alone in
the evening listening to music or watching a video or just being alone with
one's spouse and children, why wouldn't one think one could do that in a
room or two in the community housing facility?
[top]
