Month: September 2017

Henry Thoreau and Thomas Merton both had conflicting desires to be hermits and to engage the world to help the world. Thoreau comes up with a secular idea why his seclusion is good for the world while Merton must struggle with how he is both called to commune with God and serve man at the same time.

In paragraphs 102 to 104 in Walden Thoreau works out why it is okay for him to only be self sufficient and not to give to charity. His idea is that his desire for genius is worthy of others charity so that he is alright not directly helping others because his acts of thinking will benefit the world.

It may be hard to say whether or not writing Walden is better or worse than being a kind neighbor that gives to charity but after Thoreau leaves Walden he is a wonderful neighbor to the escaped slaves fleeing from the government. He also helps to convince others. His genius that he has developed has enabled him to see the humanness and value of the slaves which were given little value by most of society.

This is similar to Merton who after living in a contemplative lifestyle for so long communing with God realizes he must show others the value of the human lives that are being destroyed by the United States during the Vietnam War.

Reece unfortunately does not go into detail about the difference between retreating into “ones heart and pond”. The difference is that Merton needed to go much deeper if he was to rebel against the spirit of the law that had been set out for him by his Abbot that he should not say anything too inflammatory. Merton must reach this deeper state because he unlike Thoreau has promised himself to someone or something outside himself where Thoreau was free to do whatever he felt his heart told him to do.

• Has reading about the communities in Reece made you ask yourself a question about either the principles underlying intentional communities or the practical problems they have to solve? Share your question and explain why your reading gave rise to it.

When reading about the communities in Utopia Drive, it is difficult not to wonder what it would take to create a more permanent society.  Most of these society’s fail, in a relatively short period of time.  Comparatively, America itself has not been established long… it has been only 250 years since we had declared our independence and our country as well as our government will be tested.  Many greater nations have lasted centuries longer before their fall.  What would it take for the intentional communities mentioned to have a longer lasting impact, and keep the affections of their members from one generation to the next?

In America, it is possible that the lifestyle of many intentional communities would make it difficult to remain faithful over many years.  Intentional communities often mean giving up the member’s current way of life.  Restrictions in how members live their life can be a frustrating if a belief in the cause is not one hundred percent, and a crack in this foundation can grow immensely.  Reece explained how Owen attributed New Harmony’s end with a lack of charity, meanwhile, Warren believed it was how individuals were treated as their individualism was suppressed (134).  It is difficult to pinpoint one reason for the end of any society.  Warren’s Utopia, what is deemed as a successfully community, ended because it lacked room to grow… However if it truly was so successful, why did members leave at this point?  The majority who joined had never owned a house before, and in the end many members left for Minnesota where the land was cheap.  This paints Utopia close to a rehabilitation program— a way for members to get back onto their feet.

To create this more permanent society, the member’s beliefs would need to be almost timeless… What is true for the first generation of members would need to remain true to the later, younger generations.  I find it sad while reading that many of these communities begin and end so quickly, while many hearts have gone into the work of establishing a community.

Both the Fair Use Checklist and Creative Commons allow for users to understand which works are under certain restrictions and which are not, and how people can use them when needed. The Check List is described as a “road map” and allows for people to use the steps but also insert their own research and analysis when determining which steps to they need. These will be useful as we further develop our own research on our own community.

Most of the luxuries, and many of the so called comforts of life, are not only not indispensable, but positive hindrances to the elevation of mankind. Most of the luxuries, and many of the so-called comforts of life, are not only indispensable, but positive hindrances to the elevation of mankind. With respect to luxuries and comforts, the wisest have ever lived a more simple and meager life than the poor.

Thoreau discusses how luxuries in a “civilized” mans world is a hinderance. They do not allow humans to see the most natural and beautiful things in life. Work and money have forced people into lives that don’t allow them to live their fullest life. Reece discusses how Thoreau explains that division of labor turns people in machine (pg. 261) . It doesn’t allow people to live their true lives. Both men pay attention to the “utopia of solitude” and how this is is beneficial to mankind.

Out of  the communities we have read about in Utopia Drive, I would say that my favorite was Warren’s idea of the Equity Store, or my time for your time. I think this was my favorite because the others – especially the Shakers – seemed like a great opportunity for a community as long as everyone agreed and continued to believe in those ideas.

For me, however, I could see myself losing that drive and passion that I had originally joined the community with. With the Equity Store – and similarly, with the equity village – I didn’t think that it was something I would particularly lose interest in. In my opinion, it seemed easier than the other communities we have read about that seemed to ask for much more of the person. In the equity village, all you had to do was trade your time for someone else’s labor (and time.) It seemed like a perfect idea.

Similarly, Warren seemed the most sound to me. With Mother Ann Lee, I thought some of her ideas were… a little off. I think – after reading about some of the other communities – that you have to be that way to start a movement like Mother Ann Lee and Robert Owen did. But in terms of a community or movement that I would want to join, I thought Warren perfectly embodied a community that would work together and prosper together.

With these thoughts in mind, I thought the equity village was perfectly equitable, a quality that Warren was precisely looking for.

I also liked our discussions about the communities mentioned in Utopia Drive. In Reece’s novel, there is plenty of information, but to discuss the ideals at hand makes it easier to understand the communities and their founders. The book is interesting also in that Reece continually references the communities. He will talk of another community and say, “Just like…” and revert back to a community we had previously talked about. It’s interesting to see just how many similarities these very different communities have.

(Reflecting on…Utopia Drive: A Road Trip Through America’s Most Radical Idea, by Erik Reece)

In his road trip through America’s intentional communities, Reece explored thriving and successful egalitarian communities. At the same time, he encountered the practical problems that these communities run into. At Acorn in particular, residents frequently disagree about how to hold individuals accountable for work. This lack of consensus stems from varying definitions of a “paradise”. Sure, there are certain principles that everyone can agree on. This is a sharing society. They function with few personal items or private space. Everyone should do what it is they want to do, not forced into work that doesn’t suit them. However, for some paradise is a place where this freedom to make choices also means not needing to keep track of how much work people are doing or how much is getting done. As long as the community is well off, and all the people are comfortable, they are happy with a very loose organization. For others, paradise is not just about being comfortable, but creating a high-level functioning model of communal society. Thomas, a key organizing figure who introduced Reece to the basics of Acorn, holds the latter view. He would like for the community’s actions to drive the creation of new communities. So the principle of Acorn and similar communities is to live in an egalitarian “paradise”. But does paradise mean doing your work without needing to report on it, or doing what creates the most efficient model for change? Those with the prior view probably believe that, since egalitarian means no hierarchy in which one person has to answer to another, one should not have a responsibility to log hours for another person to assess. However, a key element in the anarchy introduced by Josiah Warren almost two hundred years ago was that liberty be counterbalanced by personal responsibility. It seems to me that most living in communes similar Acorn must agree with this statement, leaning towards a desire for freedom with accountability. The reason that Acorn has operated for so long on a model of consensus and without formal regimentation is likely that, as noted by Reece, its population mainly consists of young people. These individuals have other ideas for the future after Acorn. The longest most people stay is five years. These are not families looking to settle down, and that is why few feel the need to build a more regimented structure of accountability. In Twin Oaks, where people settle down, naturally there is agreement that the community must ensure each member is doing their fair share. A more dynamic membership creates less motive for enacting change or improving function.

 

If an intentional community creates a utopia but limits itself to 100 people what good does it do? How limiting must it be to live in a community full of people that are all perfect and being content in that perfection. If you believe that you live in a utopia you either have to embrace cultural relativism or narcissism. If your way of life is most conducive to human flourishing and are content to keep it to yourself how are you not a narcissist? It is possible that someone devoted to cultural relativism would think that only their members would enjoy their community and that their perfection was shared with all other communities. Twin Oaks provides its member with many material benefits, but they are doing very little for the inner life of its residents. This inner life is what communities ought to help its members achieve if they wish to provide any sort of utopia.

Twin Oaks has provided its members with a decent quality of life separate from the rest of the world in many ways. They do not rely on the electrical grid a feat that is quite amazing. The citizens only work 42 hours a week doing activities that have some level of meaning. The community is small enough for all of the members to know each other, maintaining about 100 members. However, except as an example it has done little to help people outside its community. The history of twin Oaks is quite different from that of the Shakers. It might seem that Twin Oaks is the successful one but if all the success in Twin Oaks is simply living a life that avoids suffering and has a nice community how can it compare with a community that provided ultimate meaning for its people and shaped their very Being.

The Shakers may have believed in countless absurdities but they managed to recognize that simply waiting around for Jesus to come again is not what he taught his disciples. The Shakers realized that to follow his teachings was to put their hope into action and live as if God has made Heaven available to humans. From the outside the Shakers lived similar lives to New Harmony and that New Harmony is successful because it still exists. However, New Harmony relies on having the correct people live in it while the Shakers called everyone to live holy lives with them. The Shakers may have had practices that we do not agree with but their motivations were pure. Their attempt to rid themselves of the consequences of original sin, woman desiring for men to rule over them and men only working in order to survive, was successful. Their success is evident because their community did not make women inferior to men. The Shakers also managed to show how wondrous a Christian communist society could be. Even by the standards of capitalist society they were surely successful given the high rate of inventions that its members created and how many well made goods were created by them.

It’s an exciting time for Sarah and myself. We have decided to research Living Energy Farm!! Our decision came about over a meal at the on- campus Qdoba, a great way to end a delicious meal (See Above Photo). We decided on Living Energy Farm because it incorporated aspects that both Sarah and I were very interested in.  The community has ties with Virginia Organizing and functions as an education center and an all around community. They are totally off the grid, while generating 90% of renewable energy, producing over half of all their own food and sharing in nearly every other aspect. We are very excited to advance our research regarding this community and hopefully visit and interview the members involved.

Within the past few weeks I feel that the main focuses of past intentional communities and current ones are centered around equality and sharing a common goal. Each community that has started or is created today both come together for the purpose of a specific goal, whether that be sustainability or a certain religion, these people come together because of their shared mentalities. Equality and understanding are, for the most part, a constant within communities. This ranges from gender, ethnicity, and even age. These communities were created because of a shared purpose and because of that, everyone involved is treated with the same amount of respect.