11 thoughts on “Readings for September 3”

1. Rosabeth Kanter argues that the unifying characteristic of utopias (or intentional communities) is that each group believes that there are negatives in society, but that these negatives can be changed, improved, and perhaps even eliminated. The belief in the possibility of perfection is central.

   According to Kanter, these intentional communities can be categorized through various distinctions. Religious utopias call for a purer connection with God, often “[coalescing] around a single charismatic figure” (Kanter 4). Politico-economic communities tend to evolve from ideas (not from a person) and originated from dissatisfaction with the Industrial Revolution’s impact on society, specifically in regards to “dehumanizing competition and the excessive labor of many for the benefit of a few” (5-6). The psychosocial critique focuses on community and on personal achievement within that community, attacking the isolation and critical nature of today’s society.

   All three categories criticize society in some way and consider it lacking. In some instances, their points of criticism seem similar and liable to overlap. In reading about the various communes, I sometimes had trouble categorizing them into one of the specific groups, which suggests that perhaps the personal perspectives of the utopias is also a component of their categorization in the critiques.

   For example, the new monastic Simple Way community melded all three societal critiques – religious, politico-economic, and psychosocial. First, the religious element: the communities are specifically Christian, a requirement implied in the 12 distinctives as “’the marks [that] show the common threads that connect Christian communities that might otherwise be seen as scattered anomalies’” (Moll 41). Second, the politico-economic perspective: the plight of people who do not have homes is central to the giving and sharing aspect of the community, as indicated through the inspiration of Simple Way’s founding and their continued adherence to that ideal. “To shelter the homeless” is a Christian imperative, but also an economic one, and Rob Moll’s article states that they were seeking “an answer to society’s materialism and the church’s complacency toward it” (40). Thirdly, the psychosocial critique: although less obvious than the other two perspectives, the idea of “creating liberating situations”and condemning “alienation and loneliness” is definitely present in the assistance offered by the Simple Way, such as to pregnant nurse Adrienne Harbison or in the resurrection of the drug and pornography house (Kanter 7). Again, helping others to grow in community with each other can be seen as a religious imperative, but it can also be viewed in a non-religious light, as is described in the psychosocial critique. The Simple Way community most clearly aligns with the religious critique, but the other two elements feature powerfully in their ideals.

   Some intentional communities are easier to categorize than others, such as the polyamorous triads. These groups try to eradicate jealousy and the idea of “shoulds,” since “everything is up for modification.” These descriptions imply a psychosocial critique, focusing on self-actualizing and freedom of self through the independence of sharing partners. The sharing of partners is also suggestive of the free love ideals in Oneida, but many of the polyamorous traids indicated the permanence of these relationships, suggesting a higher level of commitment to the individuals involved. The example of the Simple Way, however, made me question the lines of the categories, which, as usual, are more often blurred than black and white.

2. When reading about the Benton Women’s Commonwealth, it was evident that before the women established their own independent communities, the lives they led were defined by “unsatisfactory situations.” The broader culture that produced the community provided limited opportunities for women, as their quest for financial, personal and religious autonomy is a reflection of their lack of liberties in their traditional male-dominated society. The article also characterized Belton as a town where authoritarian husbands would occasionally abuse their wives and prevent them from engaging in sanctified behavior (which included performing their household duties with no sexual and little social contact with their “undevout” spouses). By providing a sheltered environment where women could seek refuge from their husbands and not only practice their religion idiosyncratically, but also gain financial independence, we can learn that the broader culture restricted women to an unfair extent, considering they needed to establish their own utopian community just to be able to live, by today’s standards, a normal life. The fact that the community was able to become as successful as it was reflects on the broader culture, in that it was one that had enough “angry or violent” husbands that enough women joined the commonwealth for it to become financially independent within a few years.
   A second example is that of Drop City, as documented in the “Children of Prosperity” reading. The initial inhabitants of the property were seeking a radical lifestyle: one that appealed to personal liberation, anti-materialism and equalitarian cooperation, which the residents felt they could not establish within the context of their traditional lives. We can also learn about the broader culture that produced the community by the continuous overcrowding of Drop City. The idea of living in communal harmony was one that appealed to many people at the time; not just the initial, specific group that founded the territory. In addition, even though Drop City “fell apart” in 1969, a new generation took over from 1970 until 1973, meaning that people still felt at odds with “broader culture” even after the initial establishment of the property. The media reaction to Drop City also helps understand the broad culture of the time as being far more conventional compared to the more innovative Drop City lifestyle. Reports documented life in Drop City like “bizarre fairy tales,” yet the residents thought of their lives as a practical quest for “love and joy.” In other words, we can learn from their attitudes towards their effort that the residents of Drop City were seeking a more creative approach to life that the more predictable broad culture of the era could not provide them with.

3. After reading about the residents of Drop City in Rule by The Woodchucks and the women in Belton Woman’s Commonwealth, I identified a struggle against the broader culture that existed in society over those two separate periods of time.
   The two groups were separated by half a decade, but their attitude towards the customs in their society led them to create their counter-cultural communities. The members of Belton Woman’s Commonwealth lived in a time, when their voice, desires, and views were dominated by those of men. The Commonwealth was founded on the doctrines of religious perfectionism, celibacy, and Wesleyan sanctificationism. Due to their authoritative husbands’ immoral business practices and habitual drinking, the woman struggled to live by these doctrines. After experiencing prophetic dreams and revelations, they felt it necessary to avoid social and sexual interactions with their ‘unsanctified husbands’.

   The small group of women ultimately left their families to live communally and establish their commune economically and administratively. Initially, the commonwealth was met with hostility by the residents of Belton because they thought the group was the cause of recent separations and divorces. The residents went as far as far as kidnapping, whipping, and forcing two Scottish brothers to leave after they tried to join the commonwealth.

   Society’s tight grip over social norms can be identified in the trials the Belton Woman’s Commonwealth initially faced. The picture of counter-cultures is further illustrated by the motives behind creating Drop City in May 1925 in Trinidad, Colorado.

   The founders of Drop City were young artists and drop outs that sought to appeal to personal liberation and communal harmony. The idea behind being liberated from money, social norms, and life structure is reinforced by the domes made out of recycled car hoods that the droppers lived in. Both the droppers and women in the Belton Commonwealth allow the time and space for self-exploration and improvement, which required them to move outside of society’s reach and ultimately, understanding. The average age of the droppers was less than 21 years old and many of them had little more than a high school diploma. We can imply that most of them were under the pressure of their parents, schools, and society.

   Drop City’s lack of rules and low standards of living gives us an idea of what kind of culture these youths were trying to escape. Most of these droppers saw their opportunity to escape the growing standards of society and travel to a place where nothing is expected of them. Upon their arrival at the commune, the youths were not expected to contribute financially, make any group decisions, or live a structured life. Although the townspeople in Trinidad were friendly and tolerant of them, a clear social distinction existed between the two groups of people.

   The ideas behind these communes and the rules, or lack of rules they implemented shows that society in both eras had an established set of values and expectations that were strict enough to cause the formations of counter-cultural communes.

4. The utopian communities in “The New Monasticism” deal with a group of young Christians who have left the middle class lives they were raised in and proceeded to enter some of the poorest neighborhoods in America. They are entering into these neighborhoods to try to give the homeless and other underprivileged people in the area a loving community. These utopias can tell us about the broader culture by the fact that they integrated religion and urban setting. The people believed that their religious piousness in their “comfortable: life was not making them into the most devoted servants of god. They decided they need to go out and live with the poor to try to help them gain a better life. It is through this active community service that they are reaching their true potential. They also decided to move into urban areas that had been largely abandoned. This can tell us a lot about the changing economy in America and the shift to production either overseas or by machine. This economic shift caused great poverty in some part of America, which is why the modern monks decided to work there.
   The Rugby utopia was created by a wealthy Englishman as a place for non-heir children go as an alternative to life in England. The community focused on higher learning and other bourgeoisie aspects of life. This could tell us that even the wealthy don’t necessarily fit into traditional society. While these people didn’t necessarily have the wealth they left behind, they still incorporated the leisure of the upper class with many clubs and sports areas available for the public to use. Because the people thought that it was important to keep high brow cultural that they grew up, it shows that that type of culture was working for the people at the time. It shows that the colonists wanted a new place to live but with all the characteristics of their heritage.

5. The societies we read about all formed in different ways. Some started with the active idea to buy a plot of land and build (Drop City- Garnder); some started with exorbitant donations (Rugby); some gradually came into play (Belton). However, they all formed because of dissatisfaction with something that existed. Looking at the Belton Woman’s Commonwealth, eventually, a big part of the Belton Women was providing housing. Housing offered these women refuge from husbands reacting “angrily or violently” from the women becoming financially independent and forming a treasury. From this detail, speculations can be made that husbands could have been abusive or threatening (confirmed in the article), which would cause women to leave and seek refuge. Men getting upset over women’s financial independence also shows that women financial independence was not the norm. The article states that many women were dissatisfied with the unscrupulous business methods of their husbands- hypothetically, could be why women started taking their own jobs so they won’t have to depend on their husbands and wrong tactics. With authority being shared by all members, this could portray what the broader society was not doing. However, with the founder, McWhirter, “exert[ing] much influence,” perhaps the women believed or realized they still needed a type of leader. McWhirter could be the equivalent of the matriarch in some common Native American societies, in which many responsibilities and decisions are shared, but the final is confirmed or advice is sought from one person. The Belton Women’s harsh treatment of the Scottish men who wanted to join may or may not reflect how these neglected, abused, or fed-up women felt towards men in society.

   The increased preference for co-ops, especially at UT Austin, explored by the New York Times, is another example of a utopian society. Co-ops are, essentially, little societies within a huge campus. Starting for its economical feasibility, it is now popular because of the “alienating aspects of modern campus life” and a sense of “social dispersion.” Specifically, the article mentions students’ yearnings to eat together, share a meal, which has us thinking: Is it not common for people to share meals nowadays? Perhaps with the onset of technology, it is not. Regular meetings are also held for people to give input to the whole co-op, which is similar to the Belton Women’s shared authority. The request for a mingling floor and “ample outdoor space, common areas” also shows the importance of socializing and relationships to students.

   By noting what utopian societies do and do not include, we can observe things about the broader community because as Kanter states, “Utopia represents an ideal of the good, to contrast with the evils and ills of existing societies.” In other words, studying utopian societies sheds light into what these people thought of the societies they came from, and in turn, shows us what these broader communities were like. Kanter believes that utopian societies “criticize, challenge, and reject the established order, then depart from it to seek the perfect human existence.”

6. While the readings offer a variety of communal experiences and experiments, there are noteworthy trends between each. First, the reasons for creating and entering any of these experiments seem to fall into a few key categories. In “Commitment and Community,” Kanter offers three classifications for utopian living projects. While these are focused on utopian experiments, the models – religious, politico-economic and psych-social – remain relevant to the other communities brought up in the readings. The breakdown of reasons between living situations shown ranged from religious, such as in “The New Monasticism” and “The Belton Women’s Commonwealth”, to social and political values, such as labor being shared in the UT co-op (Bellafante). While it is possible to compartmentalize each of the communal living situations into one of those philosophies however, the general trend, which Kanter also establishes, is simply freedom from societal norms and the desire to live cooperatively with like-minded people.

   This notion of like-mindedness is also a key theme through each of the readings. Despite critics of the communes, to have a successful communal experience, it seemed that each member had to wholeheartedly buy into the lifestyle and values. Challenges arouse when participants, such as the poet at Twin Oaks (Kanter 25), were unwilling to work within the agreed upon system. Drop City is another powerful example of how, once the commune filled up with people who did not necessarily share the group values, it became substantially less effective and lost the purity in the project.

   Related to the success of these communities, one last aspect of commune life that seemed to play a critical role was the importance and presence of open and continuing communication. Closely tied to the principles of shared values and mutual respect, regular and honest conversation seemed to feature in many of the communities presented. The UT co-op and Twin Oaks both had regular meetings where feedback was provided while the Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage video discussed how decisions were made collectively. In a slightly different vein, Khazan’s article, “Multiple Lovers, Without Jealousy” showed how successful polyamorous couples discussed their relationships, feelings, and limits. In some way or another, the majority of these communal living experiments had established space for and expected regular feedback and discussion to ensure continued investment in, and overall success of, the project.

7. The idea of judging utopias through the lens of a future historian in order to draw implications about broader culture can best be evaluated by looking at those communities which exist closest to our time frame – the French House and the Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage. The cooperative living facilities of French House is a good example of judging what the college student culture in our time might be concerned about or at least what the people in that situation were concerned about themselves. The student run facility is a cost-efficient living alternative that reflects many of the problems modern-day college students seem to have with on-campus living situations. The French House focuses on providing a closer community, something they claim can be hard for students attending a 10,000 student population campus. This was in fact one of the principal reasons that Will Stovall (the student focused upon in the article’s opening) choose to move into the house; Stovall felt that he was lost at UT and that the French House served as a better alternative and made him happier. Another person in the article, Jim Jones, talked about the fact that the co-op is one of the few places on a college campus where people can really come together to enjoy meals and be together. Interestingly, the article also seems to imply that modern culture is slowly slipping away from the custom of eating together. But another issue that the French House addresses is that in the co-op students are their own bosses- Ana Wolfowicz states that “there’s not an R.A. telling me when to turn the lights out, and we decide if we are going to buy a T.V. Such statements seem to reflect the idea that the students of our age wish to strike out on their own and make their own living choices. As such, they went to the co-op to escape the school-appointed R.A.’s who seek to impose some order over them.
   Additionally, from a historical point, it is also important to look the Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage which focuses primarily on the environment and the efforts people living there took to decrease their effect on the environment. Judging from a historical lens it is easy to draw the conclusion that our generation (since the community was still active in 2012 as the video showed) cared in some part about the environment and that the message was appealing in some way since the Ecovillage has increased membership. Another important point to observe is the idea that the main person in the film states that he is glad the people are finally starting to come around to the idea of Global Warming and other pressing environment concerns but that their community believed in that far before the rest of society. This line can serve as a useful tool to see that this wasn’t an isolated belief but that outside influences and culture also agreed, at least in part, with some of the ideas which the Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage endorses. Taking the view of a historian it would be easy to conclude that the environment was a big issue in our day, whether or not it truly is I leave up to personal opinion, and that modern culture must have had some environmental problems which led to the Ecovillage’s creation.

8. 2. In both the case of the polyamorous relationships and the case of the co-op living houses, the people that choose to indulge in these lifestyles are searching for a way to feel a connection to others. In both articles, the isolation of the modern age, in which people are more comfortable communicating through technology or are overwhelmed by their work or other obligations, are to blame. In the polyamorous relationships, these people seek a connection through emotional and sexual relationships with multiple people. In the co-op houses, these students seek a connection with their peers that they find lacking in the traditional dormitory setting. Both of these case studies highlight how isolating the modern world can be and the fact that people search for a way to avoid this.
   For the couples in polyamorous relationships, they find it more fulfilling to share their attention between multiple partners than to focus on one. For many modern couples, the stress and constant motion of life can lead to a feeling of isolation and discontent and possibly even, in an attempt for some sort of affection, to a person cheating on their partner. In the code of most monogamous relationships, this is not allowed and when discovered, can be devastating to the other partner. As described as by Jonica, a woman in a polyamorous relationship with a man and another woman, their arrangement promotes “more intimacy, less rules.” For Jonica, there are more people to whom she can possibly reach out to give her the attention that she needs, but, as the case with many polyamorous couples interviewed, there are less restrictions to seeking this out with others because there is a pre-discussed understanding about this. These people also seek out open and honest communication in their relationships. In studies, people in polyamorous relationships are proven to be at least as happy, if not happier, than people in monogamous relationships.

   For the students living in co-op housing, they are striving to find a connection to other students that they do not find in the dorm. These students, using the University of Texas model given in the article, are separated by their studies and the inadequate facilities for students to live in on campus. These students are more likely to live alone or further out, and have little to no semblance of what would be considered the ‘typical college experience.’ Moreover, the students that live alone may have few opportunities to socialize with others. Living in a co-op house allows for students to live together in a casual setting that allows them to govern themselves and interact with their peers. A secondary concern for these students is the rising costs of living on campus, although sometimes the cost of living in a co-op can be more. In these cases, the students still would prefer to live in a co-op. This proves that the search for a connection is more important for these students than cost.

9. By considering how those who reject societal norms choose to live, one is able to understand what such radicals most fundamentally disagree with. If we are to take Drop City, for example, we see a community that rejects a capitalist mentally – instead choosing to share what little each individual had. Members had no requirement to neither stay for a given period of time nor invest financially or otherwise in the community. Leadership roles were also rejected, as seen most clearly when a biker attempted to impose his leadership on the group. This opposition to societal structure is what, one might argue, ultimately led to the downfall of Drop City.

   A very different, and smaller, community is that of the polyamorous groups. Rather than reject society’s leadership structure, these individuals reject society’s definition of romantic relationships. Those who enter into polyamorous relationships believe that romantic love can be felt towards multiple people without diminishing the feelings towards any of the individuals. They also view feeling of jealousy as an internal issue that must be overcome rather than induced by a partner’s actions.

   From both of these utopian ideals, we can draw conclusions as to how the society they existed in operated. The participants in Drop City were rebelling against a money-driven, hierarchical society. Their preference for shared goods and communal spaces indicates that the society they were rejecting put great emphasis on individual property. There was also clearly a sense of ‘a life path’, as many of those who entered into Drop City were college age, and therefore at a point where they would be considering a career.

   The emphasis by the Polyamorous communities on overcoming jealousy indicates that jealousy is pervasive emotion in modern relationships. By rejecting the notion of ‘cheating’ on a romantic partner, and rather loving multiple individuals, they are clearly commenting on dysfunctional aspects of some modern relationships. With this being said, the polyamorous do not completely reject societal norms of romance. For example, none of the participants in the article considered underage partners, nor did they reject relationships entirely.

   Clearly, utopian communities are reactions to society and reject the undesirable aspects they witness. However, everyone is a product of their community and no matter how much one may wish to, one is not able to entirely remove themselves from their society’s influence.

10. Kanter describes three different general reasons for starting intentional communities, all framed by both their positive values and their negative values, those things in ordinary society that the community wishes to reject. Religious communities valued religious and spiritual perfection, pushing away from sin pervasive in society. Politico-economic communities left behind injustices to pursue political and economic perfection. Lastly, psychosocial communities lived according to the needs of human psychosocial health so neglected in greater society. She describes these categories as the “critiques of society” that provide “the initial impulse for utopian search” (Kanter 3).

    Applied to a variety of communities presented in this week’s readings, Kanter’s framework provides an important background in discussing the reasons behind and outcomes of the communities. However, often, the communities fall into more than one category. Take, for instance, the co-op at the University of Texas. The New York Times article describes the primary reason for students living in these communities as the desire to fight “the alienating aspects of modern campus life” (Bellafante). However, there is also something distinctly economic about these communities given the high cost of living near the UT campus in Austin.

    Similarly, the Simple Way falls strongly into two categories: politco-economic and religious, which are almost synonymous in the ideology of the community. The community began as a protest to churches expelling homeless people. Hence, this community began as a way to correct economic injustices. However, for this particular group, correcting economic injustices is the job of the church, a task undertaken in pursuit of spiritual perfection.

    In Kanter’s own book, she points out an example of a community that took elements of all three categories: the Oneida community. Founded in pursuit of religious perfectionism, the community also practiced communism, making all of their members equal in an economic utopia. In addition, the community had very distinct social practices, such as mutual criticism, designed to preserve community and discourage individual greed over the needs of the community. That Kanter discusses this community in her own book such a complex community shows that these distinctions were not intended to be strict categories, but rather a framework for analysis.

11. Kanter writes that American utopian communities fall into three categories: religious, politico-economic, and psychosocial. Religious communities are primarily concerned with reconciling with the divine. They seek to divorce themselves from the sinful ways of the world and usher in a sort of heaven on earth. They often espouse primitivism (they are the true church, all others having corrupted the original message) and human perfectionism (they can become free of sin in this life).

    Politico-economic utopias emerged as a rejection of industrial capitalism. They seek to remedy “the evils of the factory system” (p. 5) through cooperation and communitarianism. In such a utopia, everyone equally owns the means of production and shares the fruits of their labor. These utopias are on average more democratic than the other two categories.

    Psychosocial utopias became popular in the post–World War II era, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s. They see the greatest social evil not as sin or inequality but the repression of the individual. Mainstream society is bad for one’s mental and emotional health, and inhibits true expression of the self. Psychosocial utopias bring people into community, but the ultimate purpose is to let people be themselves.

    Of course, the categories aren’t so clear-cut when applied to real-life utopian communities. The Farm, for example, contains elements of all three: its psychedelic language and veneration of sex and childbirth are a rejection of the psychosocial anomie of contemporary life; its agrarian, communitarian economy a rejection of industrial capitalism; and its syncretic East-meets-West spirituality a rejection of ecclesiastical trappings.

    Still, I think when you look at what a utopian community identifies as the great evil of society—sin, injustice, or anomie—you can tell which category most applies to that utopia. And there we see Kanter’s periodization of the categories holding up. Most clearly, the post–World War II utopian movements, with the possible exception of New Monasticism, are at heart psychosocial movements concerned with eradicating social sickness and promoting self-actualization.