Some dreams die hard; some don't die at all. For me, the idea of living communally is so central to my ideology that it is never far from my thoughts. What can I say, I was raised on a fishing resort with my parents, my grandparents, and my uncle. Everyone lived together and shared the work (except for me because I was too little -- maybe that's why my memories are so fond). It was a wonderful way to live, and I have wondered again and again throughout the various stages of my life how it would be possible to re-create a similar situation, living together with friends or family.
Six years ago several of us were talking quite seriously about trying to set up some sort of community. We already bought groceries together, made meals together, helped each other out whenever there was a need. It was a good dream, but the timing was wrong: our resources were too meager at the time.
A few years later, we found ourselves actually living in the same house with several of you, sharing our days and our responsibilities, and the garden that we started.
It all makes me wonder about community living/communal living. How can it be done, or rather, how can it be done well? I've done some research on communes and found that most of them fail abismally. It seems that too often, communes are the brainchild of idealistic youth, strong on hope but often lacking in pragmatism, wisdom, and resources. On the other end of the spectrum, you have retirement communes. I've only read a bit about these. They seem to work better, but I can't help but wonder if such late communal living is missing too many of the benefits for which people decide to live together in the first place.
This brings me to middle-age communal living. I cannot help but wonder if people in their thirties and forties (that's most of us) should be the ones thinking about communal living. We have the resources and the earning potential, not to mention more maturity than we had in our twenties. At the same time, we are still young enough to reap the full benefits of communal living. It seems that there is so much that we could share, so many benefits on both personal and financial levels, that we should really consider the idea. I have so many thoughts on this topic that I'll publish them in a separate post, so this won't get too long.
However, before I close this, let me ask a few questions:
1) What would be necessary for the creation of a viable community?
a. In financial terms, how close to a metropolitan area would a community need to be?
b. What social conditions would need to exist? In other words, what would be required in
terms of shared values?
2) Preferences:
a. What degree of autonomy would be most likely to make such a community work?
b. How much land would be desirable, per family?
c. Is the idea of a shared business venture (farmers' market; bed and breakfast; etc.)
appealing?
I know that some of you are interested in this idea because we've talked about it before. One thing that I like about it is that there is no hurry at all. This is a dream that has persisted for me, and rather than withering like a raisin in the sun, it has only evolved. So, as far as I am concerned, if this is something that could happen five or ten years down the road, I would be happy with that. Besides, a successful community requires serious planning.
Six years ago several of us were talking quite seriously about trying to set up some sort of community. We already bought groceries together, made meals together, helped each other out whenever there was a need. It was a good dream, but the timing was wrong: our resources were too meager at the time.
A few years later, we found ourselves actually living in the same house with several of you, sharing our days and our responsibilities, and the garden that we started.
It all makes me wonder about community living/communal living. How can it be done, or rather, how can it be done well? I've done some research on communes and found that most of them fail abismally. It seems that too often, communes are the brainchild of idealistic youth, strong on hope but often lacking in pragmatism, wisdom, and resources. On the other end of the spectrum, you have retirement communes. I've only read a bit about these. They seem to work better, but I can't help but wonder if such late communal living is missing too many of the benefits for which people decide to live together in the first place.
This brings me to middle-age communal living. I cannot help but wonder if people in their thirties and forties (that's most of us) should be the ones thinking about communal living. We have the resources and the earning potential, not to mention more maturity than we had in our twenties. At the same time, we are still young enough to reap the full benefits of communal living. It seems that there is so much that we could share, so many benefits on both personal and financial levels, that we should really consider the idea. I have so many thoughts on this topic that I'll publish them in a separate post, so this won't get too long.
However, before I close this, let me ask a few questions:
1) What would be necessary for the creation of a viable community?
a. In financial terms, how close to a metropolitan area would a community need to be?
b. What social conditions would need to exist? In other words, what would be required in
terms of shared values?
2) Preferences:
a. What degree of autonomy would be most likely to make such a community work?
b. How much land would be desirable, per family?
c. Is the idea of a shared business venture (farmers' market; bed and breakfast; etc.)
appealing?
I know that some of you are interested in this idea because we've talked about it before. One thing that I like about it is that there is no hurry at all. This is a dream that has persisted for me, and rather than withering like a raisin in the sun, it has only evolved. So, as far as I am concerned, if this is something that could happen five or ten years down the road, I would be happy with that. Besides, a successful community requires serious planning.
3 comments:
Community (a value): good
Commune (a polity): neutral
Communism (an ideology): bad
For me, there are two communes that are decidedly good.
A cenobitic monastery
A family (intact, of course)
Either of these can be corrupted, like anything else.
Do I see all other communes, therefore, as bad? No. The principles that make these work can be used in other communes. I just don't know of any proven variants.
What are these principles? Both the cenobitic monastery and the family require shared values, chiefly: self-discipline, respect for authority, honesty, willingness to forgive.
Both require a benevolent authority(mom/dad, abbott/abbess), someone to uphold the standard for how life should be lived together. Disputes are settled by this authority.
Assuming that enough essential values exist around which to form a commune, then I think the following is generally true. Communes fail when...
There is no recognized authority
Authority lacks benevolence
These, I believe, explain why the youthful sort of commune fails. The break in authority being the most likely cause, either by there being a void, or through failure of the non-authorities to cooperate with the authority. The latter could originate with fault in either side.
The retirement communes... I haven't heard of this other than retirement communites, which are funded institutions that do have the required principles...for a sizeable fee. But, whenever possible, the people in these communities get in only after evaluating it for how well it's managed, what the community's culture is like, and (especially) can all their practical needs be met.
And for any commune, what about those practical needs? They can be met in any number of ways as determined by the commune itself, under guidance from the leader. It is a dynamic relationship between the leader and the non-leaders that allows the commune to adapt to changes in the external conditions, upon which the commune depends. But that gets us back to benevelent authority, respect for authority, and shared values.
That's my take on it...
Very, very interesting. I like what you say about necessary values. In particular, I think that willingness to forgive is absolutely paramount. There can be no relationship without forgiveness. There can be no community without relationship.
I'm also very interested in what you say about authority. If a group of people decide to live together in community, they are entering a sort of compact consisting of their varying wills and desires. It is impossible to create a perfect unity of will, and so disputes and disagreements will arise.
When a group of us were talking about living communally years ago, we baulked at the idea of an authority. We had great confidence in one another and in our ability to bend in order to live in harmony. We shared a general sentiment that the establishment of an authority figure would contradict the spirit of the communal project. In defence of our idealism, I will say that we did have a remarkable ability to work together and a strong set of commonly held values.
Nonetheless, from my current vantage point, I can see the wisdom in your words. Situations do arise, situations for which genuine good will is not enough to create resolution. Also, I can see how conflicting wills left with no authority to moderate could easily lead to disaster.
So that raises a very important question: how does a group of similarly-minded (though not entirely like-minded) people find an authority in whom they can put their trust?
An aside: when my family owned the resort, there were three family groups involved. My grandfather was the authority because he had invested the money to purchase the resort, and he always held onto a 51% interest in it. Looking back, I think that his authority ordered the venture and held it together, but in the end, there were some unresolved hard feelings about the way things happened.
Back to the question of finding an authority: do you see the authority as necessarily resting on a particular individual by some sort of merit? Or, are there other possibilities? What do you think of the idea of an elected council, say three people that serve as the collective authority for a set period of time? They are elected, so that makes them an acceptable and chosen authority. They are three, so that prevents a single will from dominating. They are three, so their decisions necessitate discussion and shared ideas. They are an odd number, so a matter could be decided by a simple vote. At the same time, many decisions could be made by voting of the community as a whole. (I would trust just about any combination of three people on this blog in such a role.)
These are good thoughts. Thank you. I'm interested in hearing how others feel about authority and governance.
You raise a good question: how to select an authority? Should it be an individual? Should it be a group? WHO chooses? What organizational structure should embody the authority?
I guess I back off from here, and leave such details to whatever group is having to answer it. I don't think there are specific answers that fit all groups beyond basic principles that need to be heeded. For example, the NEED for authority is a real, unavoidable thing, rooted in human nature. People, both individuals or groups, NEED authority just as a person needs air. Similarly, freedom to be an individual is also a need. And yet, identification with a group is also a need. And there are others.
But beware. When any one need becomes a prism through which to understand the others, then bad things happen. For example, if authority becomes paramount, then the others lose out--freedom is lost in order to maintain authority.
Conversely, if the need for freedom becomes paramount, then authority gives way to freedom--this might be called anarchy, or a mob. The need for group identity also looses out if freedom rules; this might be called isolation.
The key is balance. How does this happen? God knows.
If a small group of people were to live in a commune, as you suggest, what you propose could work. All would have to agree to it, AND, have the integrity and honor to stick to the agreement even in times when it is really, REALLY, uncomfortable. In an extreme sense, ANY system can work, provided all parties agree, and hold their integrity and honor steady at all times. But maintaining such honor and integrity is more difficult under some systems than others.
Marriage is a great illustration. I know of couples who've been married a LONG time, even though I know one of the spouses to be really difficult to please. How, I ask myself, has this not driven the other spouse to divorce? It did in one case, but not another. Why? God knows.
So, I think, the most I can see are parameters for what can work, but actually making things work within those parametrs, is really where the solution lies--and there are infinitely many solutions. At least, there are as many solutions as there are groups.
Post a Comment