10 thoughts on “Readings for September 10”

1. The relatively widespread appearance of communes in the 1960’s and 1970’s had a longer impact on the overall culture of America despite the abandonment of most utopian societies. Fred Turner and Donald Pitzer argue, respectively, in “Where the Counterculture Met the New Economy: The WELL and the Origins of Virtual Community,” and “Developmental Communalism into the Twenty-First Century” the overall extant that these communes had in affecting the mainstream culture. Turner argues that the communes sparked people to feel the need for a community of diverse figures who share similar ideals. Pitzer, on the other hand, claims that these small experimental communities tried out different ways of life and if they were successful the mass public would gradually accept these principles. While Turner offers an interesting perspective, Pitzer’s argument was overall more comprehensive and factual then Tanners article.

   Pitzer’s article references everything from education, health care, the green movement, and the food industry being transformed by ideas practiced by many commune members. He spends a lot of time describing how communes were some of the first places that many ideas were tested before expanding into the “real world”. One example is that a commune, the Shiloh Family, originally executed the concept of organic farms producing food for a wide range of people. (Pitzer 39) Pitzer shows the direct correlation between what happened in a commune such as the green movement, becoming an integral part of normal life currently.

   Turner uses the WELL project as an example of commune society in the 70’s extending into our daily lives today. He marks the success of the online forum to the basic need of people to be in a community setting often found in a commune. While the presence of a wide variety of people connecting with each other and interacting is similar to the population of the communes, it is also apparent in normal society. The main problem with the argument is that communes didn’t invent communities. The counter culturists of the 70’s rejected the normative group of the era to start their own group; nevertheless, there was a group to leave from. Thus the presence of the online connection is not unique to the commune life even though it did develop from the counterculture movement. Because of the flaws in Turner’s theory, Pitzers has a more convincing argument for the widespread implementation of commune ideals.

2. After viewing numerous communes separated by a century of vast technological, cultural, and social changes, Kanter believed that the majority of 20th century communes were unable, or only slightly able to establish and maintain the principles that 19th century communes modeled themselves after.

   Kanter described the 20th century communes as nostalgic; turning away from the progress of society to explore their back-to-land mentality, which emphasized on small town, farm, handwork, medicine, and nineteenth century simplicity. Although many of these communes yearned for the restoration of 19th century values and lifestyle, their organization, leadership, and ties with society were evidence of how little they were influenced by the 19th century.

   A majority of the 20th century ‘anarchic’ communities, as Kanter described them, were reluctant to form groups larger than 30 and failed to organize the members in an effort to ensure the longevity of the commune. Many of the poor qualities these 20th century communes possessed reinforced Kanter’s view that they substantially lacked the influence of 19th century communes. Most of the contemporary communes were remarkably smaller, short lived, and lacked a stable membership, such as Drop City. When Drop City was formed by a group of dropouts and artists in May 1965, a clear set of guidelines were not put in place for its members, which led to its ultimate downfall in 1973. Kanter cited Judson Jerome’s remarks regarding the viewpoints of the communes, he said, these 20th century communes were “seeking Eden rather than Utopia”. Rather than following the footsteps of a 19th century commune possessing a tight family-like group structure, rules, and assigned duties like Oneida for example, the contemporary communes searched for natural order and spontaneous agendas. Without having a set of guidelines to abide to, these contemporary commune members destroyed the cohesiveness of the commune in seeking independence to explore their individuality.

   The 20th century communes were unable to grasp many of the 19th century communal principals because of the difficulties in escaping their outside environment. Kanter stated that urbanization, technology, and mass communication in the 20th century were the three factors preventing contemporary communes from maintaining stable boundaries that would create separation from society. Rather than duck out into the middle of the backcountry and create a farming community for hundreds of members, these small communes could not escape society’s grip and ultimately, allowed many social norms of the 20th century to slip past their borders and destroy them from the inside out.

   Finding isolation, strong leadership, committed members, and solid guidelines for a society in the 20th century was just about impossible. Many communes were unable to fully separate from society and seize the opportunity of total-seperation. This desperation to remain a countercultural community in a pervasive era has led to these communities lacking a majority of the principles established by the communities a century before them.

3. At the end of her book, Kanter makes the critical claim that “American communes have not done much to change the society at large.” She makes this assertion based on her discovery that many of the described utopias, as self-contained societies, only sought to benefit themselves rather than the greater good of the global community. For example, the residents of the communes that Kanter studied looked to make improvements to society in terms of their resource allocation, conflict resolution and cultural development contributions. Yet, by taking action solely in their own communities, with their backs turned to the “global village,” the communes made no changes to the inequitable distribution of goods, violence and politics plaguing the societies that they were created to reject. In other words, while the communes were established with a mission to create a more livable society, they ended up isolating themselves from others: making a change only in the lives of those who were already intensely involved in their mission, rather than trying to change the behavior of non-utopian thinkers in society at large. In addition, Kanter argues that while most utopian communities are sheltered from the reality of traditional society, they are often “highly dependent” on the existence of the very societies they reject, especially in terms of needing the greater society in order to find a shared rejection for the society to rebel against. This point argues that inherently, a utopian society needs an unchanged “real-world” society to thrive, which strengthens the argument that communes have not done much to change society at large.

   Based on the other readings we have done for class, I agree with Kanter that communes really haven’t done much to change society at large. One reason I believe this is that if earlier communes had indeed made changes to society at large, there would not be such high frequency of other communes established throughout time, especially ones similar to each other. For example, we read about Drop City, which emerged in the late 1960s as a utopia for personal liberation and communal harmony in the vein of the popular “hippie movement” of the era. But, Drop City failed to survive in two different incarnations without leaving much of an impact on society, let alone the surrounding community, which tolerated the commune but looked upon it with amusement. Not long after Drop City dissolved, The Farm encouraged a similar lifestyle in a different part of the country. Had Drop City had more of an impact on society at large when it was active, it would have been possible for followers of The Farm to have gone there instead, or have felt the impact of Drop City and have found it unnecessary to develop their own commune. In other words, if a commune had truly changed society, there wouldn’t be a need for another commune that promoted analogous ideals. An exception would be the co-op movement as we read about at UT-Austin, which has changed society by expanding to other college campuses; but, in my opinion, a co-op is not a traditional “commune” like many of the other examples we have read about. Additionally, I agree that because of the isolationist nature of many utopias, they are more focused on bettering themselves than the societies they reject, and as a result have not been successful in changing the greater community.

4. Kanter’s primary justification as to why American communes have done little to change American society at large comes from her belief that the utopian commune model is ultimately impractical for a macrosocial reconstruction. Her comment “the utopian community…may not be able to survive the transition from small group to urban community, from isolated retreat to complex society” perfectly sums up her argument: regardless of whether they are a retreat or service mission, the way utopian communities function largely depends on their small size. According to Kanter, the involvement and participation of members would not translate effectively to larger communities. Ultimately, I would agree with Kanter’s theory that the social organization of communes makes it difficult to create systemic, societal change; however, based on some of the readings, particularly from this week, I would challenge whether her critiques are totally fair.

   The Pitzer article in particular offers multiple examples of the influence of earlier communes on American society. One especially salient example was the Timothy Miller Communes Project which showed that whole and natural foods – the original “fair of hippies” – are now a substantial market in American food retail. In that article, one communitarian, Omni, attributes the communes with leading the way to the whole foods and organic farming culture (pg 39). If Pitzer, Omni, and Miller are correct, then it seems that the communes have had some significant influence. However, we might also question these eco-village communities truly were responsible for pioneering organic farming.

   Credit for organic farming aside, the point here is that perhaps utopian communities can make a significant impact in certain ways, such as farming, but not on the power structure that characterizes American society. Despite the cooperative or socially minded structure communes may adopt, Kanter insists, “nothing [can] change the inequitable resource allocation and income distribution in American society” (pg 226). Ultimately, I agree. On the most basic level, I do not believe American politics will not be transformed or inspired by utopian communes. However, I believe the kind of cooperative and environmentally friendly movements and change they are capable of creating can slowly, and perhaps drastically, transform American society.

5. It is my argument that between Turner and Pitzer, Pitzer presents a much more persuasive argument for why utopian communities have been influential to modern culture. One of the key reasons for this is based off the fact that Pitzer discusses much more current and well-known results of the Utopian communities. Turner however, talks about WELL and the Whole Earth Catalog, topics which are not as well-known and which don’t truly serve to show how Utopian communities affected the world I live in. In order to be more persuasive the author must relate to his audience on some level (especially if the goal is to show how much something has impacted said audience) and the influences that Turner focuses on and develops are not common knowledge. Turner does delve deeper into his points and does a better job of explaining their origins than Pitzer (at least in my own personal opinion) but when such origins and end results have such little relevance it is hard to be truly persuaded. This analysis is not to say that Turner does not bring up several intriguing and interesting points but it does serve to say that Pitzer is more successful at relating Utopian Community achievements to everyday aspects of modern life.

   Pitzer does an excellent job of not only pointing out several more well-known influences but also of talking about more ways that Utopian Communities impacted the world. Pitzer talks at length about how Communities were the first to advocate the whole and natural foods that are oh so popular now a days, and how “yogurt, tofu, whole-grain bread, and high-fiber vegetables” were all “once the fare of hippies [Pitzer 38].” Pitzer also dwells on how much Utopian Communities affected health care (via more humane birthing centers after the work of the Farm) and Education (through the predation of progressive teaching methods). Also intriguing is how Pitzer claims that the internet forums and online social-networking so widespread and popular throughout our culture is derivative of utopian systems of communication. However, most interesting to me personally is how Pitzer claims that the Zionist Movement was a Utopian Community which actually succeeded in bringing about the goal of an independent Jewish state. If Pitzer’s claims are correct than a “Communal Society” [Pitzer 35-36] was responsible for bringing into existence an entirely new state which has had a tremendous impact on not only the surrounding region of the Middle East but the world as a whole.

6. Faith’s analysis of the Pitzer and Turner articles as respectively dealing with concrete examples and with ideas and concepts accurately portrayed the spirit of the two pieces. However, although the specificity and economic inclination of Pitzer made his argument more convincing on a surface level, the ideas presented by Turner suggested a revolutionizing innovation in the realm of thought.

   Although the Whole Earth ‘Lectronic Link (WELL) movement did not invent the idea of community, it was innovative in the field of internet communities (online forums) which are still extremely popular. Today, we take the internet for granted, but considering the internet in the 1980s (when the WELL was established) requires a completely different mindset. The internet was a relatively blank slate of opportunities and possibilities. The method of community differed from communities in the past, since it spanned locations, linking people with others they had never met in a matter of minutes. Geographical spans were bridged in a short time frame. Those with common interests could create instantaneous connections, and since common ideals are one of the elements that Kanter suggests is missing from many modern communes (specifically “retreat” communes), the importance of innovating ways of connection, which in turn can inspire social movements, cannot be underestimated.

   The sources and benefits of ideas are more easily challenged than specific examples, however. The Pitzer article focused on concrete benefits (often economic), which are more convincing from an immediate point of view. However, even given the nature of these benefits, we often do not recognize them as stemming from communes. Certain expected goods or services in our society, such as natural and organic foods, were not available to any great extent before the “hippie” commune movements. The Habitat for Humanity program is a significant volunteer opportunity here at Rice, but when I told a friend (who is highly involved) that it originated from a commune in Georgia, she was surprised. We often fail to associate many of the benefits with the communes themselves as the catalysts for these improvements. Being able to associate the communes with their impacts (whether ideas or something more concrete) will allow us to gain a better understanding of what members saw as their goals and how we can benefit from learning about these communes that many people today still stereotype as “weird.”

7. Kanter believes that generally “American communes have not done much to change the society at large” (p.225). She argues that most communal groups focus their attention inwards rather than on the outer society – at least they did so in the past. Nowadays, communes may be focused on improving certain aspects of their society. Still, by their very nature a Utopian community cannot encompass the outer society without changing its nature. If a Utopian community was to expand to the point they played a significant role in the political world, would they still be Utopian communities or simply part of the society they were originally trying to change?

   Communes such as the Ecovillage discussed in last week’s readings do have a wider goal in promoting environmentally friendly actions. This is in keeping with other modern utopian societies which, according to Kanter, no longer wish to simply remove themselves from a dysfunctional society but help mend it. However, these communes are often unable to affect the society at large because their methods are often not suitable for a larger community. “If the commune gets much larger than a few hundred members, its organization must change” (p. 228).

   While I agree that utopian communities are often unable to influence the society at large, I do wonder whether that is truly their goal. Those who desire to live outside of society, may not be the best individuals to affect change within it. Nor, perhaps, are they as invested as they appear. If we take the Ecovillage, one must question whether – by living in a commune in which it is possible to take extreme action in favor of the environment – they are able to dictate to a working family appropriate means to live a more environmentally friendly life.

   It may also be wrong to suggest that a utopian commune hope to affect the society at large. Some may have a wider motive, but others may simply choose a different lifestyle that is unconcerned with the lifestyle of others. Perhaps we are grouping, or lumping, these utopian societies together and instead they should be seen as different entities: Those societies that choose to live independently, and those that have a wider mission.

8. Based on Kanter, nineteenth century communes had great influence on twentieth-century communes, whether it be negative or positive. Many things or ideas created today are influenced by something of the past, whether it’s to model after it or know what it should not be. The influence could be said to have been slight because of large socially environmental changes branching from technology.

   Technology existed in the nineteenth century, but became predominant and more tied into human life within the twentieth century. Some children today cannot imagine life without some “essential” technological bits. “Communes are conscious and purposeful in their attempt to separate from the larger society and create a special group” (p. 171). However, technology can be a thorn to the side for this goal. With increasingly fast ways to contact people (email), luxury time shifted towards activities that use technology, and now, real-time ability to keep up with people and the world, it’s difficult to “separate from the larger society.” Weak boundaries can lead to lack of commune cohesiveness, resulting in a failure. Regarding separating from society, other than being a technicality that aids the commune survival, the notion of exclusivity also arises because Utopian communities are “challenges to the assumptions on which current institutions are organized’ (236). A part of challenging is showing the larger part of society that they can do it without them and without the same polluting resources, figuratively and literally. However, how can Utopian societies expect to promote change for the better if they keep it all to themselves? In a way, Utopian societies can be said to be selfish. When mentioning “utopian,” one thinks of a harmonic society in which decisions are made together, everyone loves one another, everyone has similar goals, everyone works together- the epitome of a self-less and self-sacrificing community. Kanter had implied, and we brainstormed in class that part of what makes a utopian society is the placing of group over self. Nonetheless, the forming of such a society is, no matter what, in some part motivated by selfish desire or even self-indulgence. These communities arise when there is disagreement towards how the larger society is run. Why not change the larger society or make an impact there? Why do these people, instead, decide to withdraw from the larger society, keep these ideas and ideals to themselves and a few select people? By leaving (or attempting to) the general society, one can be argued to be fueling the selfish desire to find or create a place that is run as oneself wants it to be run- especially in societies in which one central figure reaches prominence, like the Oneida community and its strange infatuation with the founder, Noyes. This assertion can also be backed by Kanter’s saying that “communes are only movements of withdrawal, which do not promote social change in the society at large.”

   Despite technological changes and my pointing out the paradox of utopian societies (regarding the 2nd question), it is human nature to draw from the past. The Europeans looked back to the Roman Empire, the Chinese looked back to the Confucian Zhou, communes today look towards a “romanticized past” (168). More direct influenced examples could be the societies that create the small town with the farm, natural organic foods, herbal medicine, and 19th century tools, but it can be relatively safe to say 19th century communes were models of what to do and what not to do for 20th century communes. As to whether they’ve brought enough attention and earned respect to impact society-at-large is another question.

9. In their articles, Fred Turner and Donald Pitzer both argued that utopian communities have been influential. Pitzer, in his chapter “Developmental Communalism into the Twenty-First Century”, argued that utopian communities have now led to a new era of ‘development communalism’, in which the ideas of these communities are being integrated into society as a whole. However, Turner, in his article “The WELL and the Origins of Virtual Community”, argued that the Whole Earth Catalogue began a system that integrated communication, technology, and new ideas in a way that eventually shaped mainstream American business interactions and internet communications. Turner’s article was more in depth because he only focused on one community, but I found Pitzer’s chapter more persuasive to the effects of utopian society as a whole by the breadth of examples and ideals used.

   I would argue that Pitzer’s chapter was more persuasive, in that these communities managed to implement what a large portion of such groups hope in changing the ideas of the mainstream culture to what they themselves believed. For example, the natural foods enjoyed by hippies now are found in most grocery stores [Pitzer, 38]. A more direct example was used in the case of Koinonia Farm, in which their system of houses with interest-free loans and volunteer labor created the organization Habitat for Humanity, a now international organization that is ranked tenth in income among charities in the United States [Pitzer, 44]. This chapter cited many examples of what utopian communities have done to change society, further including education, healthcare, and tolerance. These small utopian communities managed to convince others of their ideals, either in their distant or immediate future, and caused some real consideration, which in turn led to social change.

   In the case of Turner’s article, he managed to convince that the now common way of communication on the internet and in business through an open forum of ideas was descended from this catalogue, but not the ideals that they espoused. The Whole Earth Catalogue was a precursor to internet communities, as it allowed geographically distant people to share ideas and communicate with one another as a group. This catalogue eventually was turned into a website, in which people could do much of the same. However, the simpler lifestyle that these people strived for was never realized. Only the methods in which they wanted to accomplish this were upheld. This itself was radical, but it is possible that it could have evolved in other ways, such as communications within a company. Additionally, this article only mentioned one way in which utopian communities have proved influential on society at large.

10. 2. When a utopia actually influences the society surrounding it, does it cease to become a utopia? After all, the word “utopia” literally means, in Greek, “nowhere.” If a utopia’s ideas or behaviors are adopted by mainstream society, the utopia is no longer nowhere but is incorporated into the surrounding world. A utopia can’t be a utopia anymore once it’s somewhere.

    Perhaps this can help us reconcile Kanter’s claim that utopias have little impact on mainstream society with Pitzer’s and Turner’s arguments that communal societies were responsible for many aspects of contemporary life. Perhaps a utopia doesn’t actually have much impact on anywhere else, but this is because once it does have an impact, it is no longer a utopia. As Pitzer argues, a utopia can be a means to an end, and once that end is reached, the utopia is no longer necessary.

    Kanter, on the other hand, argues that utopias, if they intend to change the world rather than simply escape from it, go about changing the world by simply existing as a model community. They do not actively interact with or intervene in the world. Their political isolationism leaves them powerless to effect lasting social change, and their other options (grow to state-level size or hive off into several geographically disparate communities) present logistical and organizational problems that no one has yet figured out how to solve.

    Then again, Kanter’s was writing in 1972–or really, the 1960s, given the delays of revision and publication–when the latest communalism movement had barely begun. Kanter’s portrayal of utopians as isolationists is more accurate for the 19th century (think of Oneida, the Shakers, the Belton Women’s Commonwealth–though not so much for the Owenites) and for the early drop-out movement of the 1960s and early 1970s, than for the communards from the late 1970s to the present. Pitzer points out how many ideas from these communal movements (organic food, natural birth, co-housing) have won popularity in mainstream society, and Turner makes explicit how 1970s utopians, particularly those who read and contributed to the Whole Earth Catalog, helped create some of the first recognizable online forum communities. Computer technology and other forms of mass communication have made it easier for communitarians to market their ideas, and for others to appropriate those ideas.