While reading Kanter’s essay, “The Comforts of Commitment: Issues in Group Life,” I constantly found myself returning to the points she made about a strong and centralized “charismatic leader” as a crucial element in many successful communities (127). Although I understand that Kanter covers nineteenth-century communes, it’s valid to read her essay intertextually with the 1960s’ reemergence of communal living; the image of this enthusiastic leader seems relevant to the rise of cult groups. (Maybe in class we should briefly discuss what distinguishes an organized commune from an organized cult.) Of course there are no clear-cut boundaries between the two, but I can’t help but think of the “Manson Family” when I hear about charismatic figureheads. What isn’t addressed in the paper (and I realize this isn’t part of the essay’s topic) is the abuse of power and the implications of this on the group’s members. What most times begins as a peaceful and seemingly loving group can become monopolized by a single person very gradually and then very suddenly. As Kanter points out, however, the devotion to the centralized leader causes a member’s commitment to the group to grow. I propose that this fierce commitment based on the group’s leader can cause people to become manipulated.

This is why I find the abandonment of individuality so problematic; we are at our most vulnerable when we disown all that we’ve ever known (family, friends, morals) in order to become a part of something completely new. Hence why cult members often partake in activities that they would otherwise never be involved in, but do, for the sake of the greater community.

As for Sosis & Bressler’s piece (though much of the mathematic aspects go right over my head), to me, the results are not too shocking. People are incentivized to work hard their entire lives and do good and give to charity, not always because of sheer selflessness but because of the promise of reward in an afterlife. That might be kind of cynical, but I think that’s where the researchers’ data was guiding them. Secular communes aren’t motivated by the fear of disappointing a higher power because there isn’t one to worship, hence why secular communities lose membership or struggle with balancing a centralized leadership with democratic ideals. And I generally think this is OK — you don’t want to have to invent some higher power in order to maintain your group’s membership — there’s an artificiality about that. If people are not willing to be active members in the community, it’s simply not for them and they should be encouraged to either get more involved or go their own way.