Intentional Communities & The Nature/Culture Dichotomy
What do intentional communities tell us about the dichotomy between nature and society?
The dichotomy between the wilderness of nature and the civilising power of society has been a defining feature of anthropological thought (Descola & Pálsson, 1996). From Durkheimian dualism to contemporary anthropologists there has been a great shift away from the assumed universality of this ontological distinction. While anthropological work questioning this dichotic assumption has often regarded people in hunter gather societies, less attention has been paid to groups in the West. Intentional communities have a long history in the West and particularly in the U.S. While their divergent nature in terms of motivation, ideology and structure vary not only in space but time, there are some shared factors which unify the term. They may vary in size (and indeed different academics hold different size criteria) but generally they must involve enough members that they are not composed of one extended familial group, and they must not be so large that they could be conceived of as their own distinct “peoples”, ethnicity or country. They are primarily a subculture, associated as being in some way separate from the larger society. With an intentional creation which distinguishes them from habitually forming communities such as neighbourhoods (Brown, 2002). Intentional communities have traditionally been the subject of historical and sociological study with most focus being on the groups which emerged in the 60’s and 70’s after the “Summer of Love” in 1967. However, as anthropologists started looking inwards at Western cultures intentional communities have become an emerging place of anthropological research (Brown, 2002). There exists multiple forms of intentional communities in contemporary culture of which only a small percent have any pertinent existing academic literature (for an extensive list see Christian, 2007). Subsequently the present paper offers only an analysis of a snapshot of this movement, and has primarily focused on groups with an explicit relevance to ecology. While the ethnographic literature regarding contemporary intentional communities is currently limited (Lockyer & Veteto, 2013) a few studies have made claims that contemporary intentional communities “represent an on-the-ground attempt to overcome the nature-culture dualism” (Van Schyndel Kasper, 2008, p16). In reviewing the current literature three recurrent themes emerged; sustainability, spirituality and stewardship. Within these themes lies the motivations, logic and beliefs which underlie the intentional community movement and highlight the extent to which these communities challenge the nature/society dichotomy.
Nature is a recurring concept amongst the study of American intentional communities, from casual affiliations between spirituality and nature, to aims of self-sustainability in “back to the land” movements to societies with environmental concerns as the major driving force for their conception. We also see a shift overtime as to how the relationship between communities and nature is expressed and prioritised. The “Hippie” communes that arose out of the 1960’s primarily focused on living “counter culturally” a significant part of which was a rejection of middle class America’s alienation from and destruction of America’s natural resources and places of wilderness. (Rome, 2003) Communities from this time often expressed an admiration and desire for both physical and spiritual connection to nature. More recent intentional communities, particularly the “eco village” movement which came to proliferation in the 1990’s have been founded with increased environmental science knowledge in mind and contemporary concerns regarding climate change being the primary motivation for creating an alternative way of life (Lockyear & Veteto, 2007). While intentional communities have a much longer history in the U.S than this, it is the groups which have formed and survived from 1968 which are most relevant to the current papers line of inquiry.
Sustainability is perhaps the most expressed theme throughout the literature, both in academic analysis and from interviews with informants. The issue of sustainability encompasses not only a necessity for internal stability (given how many communities fall apart) but also issues of ecology and economy. Ecological sustainability is the ultimate goal of any ecovillage (or other ecologically minded community). Ecovillages in particular are aimed at being an exemplar of an ecologically sustainable lifestyle. That is one which is minimally damaging to the planet and does not rely on finite resources (Van Schnysel Kasper’s, 2008). This aim is a reaction to what is seen as current unsustainable practices in mainstream society. The concerns surrounding “peak oil”, the point at which oil extraction peaks and enters inevitable decline (Hubert, 1956, are frequently mentioned throughout the literature (Christian, 2007; Lockyear, 2007; Greenberg, 2013). Ecological sustainability is tied to the issue of economics, mainly the contribution of the capitalist model to the unsustainable use of finite resources. Pálsson (1996) categorises three different relations between humans and nature; orientalism, paternalism and communalism (of which orientalism and paternalism support the nature-culture dichotomy). Orientalism refers most poignantly to current practices endorsed by capitalism wherein humans are masters of a nature which is theirs to exploit. McCright & Dunlap (2000) have also addressed specifically how contemporary politically conservative ideology serves to undermine the arguments of ecologists surrounding climate change. Particularly underlying ideas around the relationship between humans and nature as one of necessary domination and commodification. A viewpoint referred to as the Dominant Social paradigm or manifest destiny (McCright & Dunlap, 2000). Many intentional communities, particularly those who arose during the 60’s and 70’s (Miller, 2012) can thus be seen as a response against such worldviews. Furthering the claim that they challenge the nature-society dichotomy which is endorsed by capitalist and conservative politics.
The issue of capitalism and sustainability is further examined by the view that capitalism itself is an unsustainable economic model, a view which informs many individuals’ motivations for forming intentional and ideally self-sustaining communities (Lockyear, 2007.) While intentional communities are often stereotypically associated with more leftist and anticapitalistic politics it is interesting to note that the frequently cited and popular guide authored by Christian (2007) offers reassurance in a chapter titled “Ten Most Common Fears about Joining a Community” for those who do not align with such beliefs. (Including sections titled “I Don’t Want to Live a “Poverty Conscious” Lifestyle with Limited Resources”, “I Don’t Want to Have to Share Incomes” and “I Don’t Want to Live with a Bunch of Hippies”) Highlighting not only the vast range of communities available but also some of the stereotypes which contemporary communities may be trying to distance themselves from. Ultimately the issue of sustainability highlights some key ontological underpinnings of the movement regardless of political affiliation. Namely, sustainability implies a level of balance which must be reached in order for human actions to not be endemically degrading to the continuation of the planet. This viewpoint would seem to conform somewhat to Pálsson’s (1996) third category of human-nature relationships, communalism, in that it see’s humans and nature as part of one ecological system, one whole. However, sustainability also has implications surrounding conceptions of time, namely that the earth is something that without human interface would be inherently sustainable and perpetual. This underlying assumption is then posited on a separation of humans and nature. Implying human action is in some way at odds with the natural order of things, and that sustainable practices are the best way to “get back” to how humans should be.
Spirituality (and in more specific terms religion) has long been recognised for its interconnectedness to understanding and relations with nature (Ihavik, 2007). The Hippie communes which arose in the late 60’s and 70’s particularly highlight how spiritual conceptions of nature have been related to the formation of intentional communities. The countercultural movement involved a rejection of mainstream American values including the Judeo-Christian conceptions of an Earth made for the consumption and domination of man. Lynne’s (1967) foundational essay examines the way in which Christian ideology paved the way for ecological crisis by instilling a vision wherein exploitation of nature is seen to be the natural order of things. The Hippie communes which arose, in part to a rejection of these ideals, came to typify a spirituality more akin to animistic religions and Eastern philosophies (Miller 1991). While the emergence of Christian communes during this time, particularly those who came to be known as “Jesus Freaks”, retained much of the outward appearances and colloquialisms of the Hippie movement they did not ascribe to the same political or lifestyle ideals (Simmonds, Richardson & Harder, 1976). Pálsson’s (1996) categories of ecological ontologies cites animistic and totemistic religions as the “truest” examples of communalism. Signified by the extension of personhood to non-human animals and a perception of humans as only a part in a larger whole which can be conceived of as nature. If intentional communities are then an example of such conceptions in the West then this lends credence to the view that they challenge the nature-culture dichotomy.
Spirituality is still a recurrent theme for communities which have continued to thrive since their conceptions in the 70’s like The Farm (Stevenson, 2014) and for many communities which have sprung more recently. As highlighted by Christian (2007), the need to share a moral centre whilst still allowing for secularity is a concern for the sustainability of communities. As such it is not surprising that many communities cite spirituality in their websites and materials, while keeping the term suitably vague. In lieu of religious dogma a unifying aspect of the community is fulfilled by a shared ideology of ecology. A shared concern for ecological issues - particularly sustainability- and the ethical notion of holding a responsibility to live in such a manner is an obvious yet crucial component of successful ecologically driven communities. After all, why would you voluntarily live in one if you did not ascribe to its underlying ideology? The distinction between spirituality and ideology is ambiguous and entangled enough that it cannot be fully dissected here. But from an anthropological perspective it may be best to merely distinguish the two by how groups of people perceive and describe their beliefs as being more ideologically or spiritually driven. Following that logic, while some contemporary intentional communities speak of worship or a spiritual connection to nature for others the prevailing language used is one of ideological thought and ethics informed by ecological knowledge. But in many cases these two are intermingled and not so consciously separated.
An issue which bridges the distinction between spirituality and ideology is the notion of stewardship. A term which is used throughout the eight communities studied by Van Schyndel Kasper (2008) and forthrightly on multiple websites of other groups (e.g., Cloughjordan Ecovillage, 2014; Hart's Mill Ecovillage and Farm, 2016; Paititi-institute.org, 2016. and many others.) For some communities stewardship is a spiritual act (Paititi-institute.org, 2016) and for others it is a term of ecological practice (Cloughjordan Ecovillage, 2014). Van Schyndel Kasper (2008) does not offer a distinct definition of the term, but in its dictionary definition the term connotes “the activity or job of protecting and being responsible for something” and more particularly “the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one's care “stewardship of natural resources”” (Merriam-webster.com, 2016). Van Schnysel Kasper’s (2008) omission of a definition poses some trouble to his claims that ecovillages are challenging the nature-culture dichotomy. While stewardship is clearly a less domineering conception than traditional Christian relationships to land and ideas of manifest destiny (McCright & Dunlap, 2000) is it really free from an ontological distinction between humans and nature? After all, it still posits nature as something to be maintained and protected by human action, and sees the world as a thing “entrusted” to humans. The idea of stewardship implicates that there is a natural world that needs protecting from the unsustainable and incongruous actions of humans. This failure to distinguish stewardship as a concept which is itself predicated on a nature-culture dichotomy highlights some unrecognised assumptions not only around intentional communities but the larger ideology associated with ecology as a whole.
Pálsson’s (1996) categories of human-nature relationships defines paternalism in terms of a protective relationship defined by “balanced reciprocity” thus “presupposing human responsibility” (p. 67). Pálsson argues that this relationship, while differing in motive and ideology from orientalism, still sustains a nature-culture division. Pálsson further highlights the tendency for ecologists to fetishize nature, thus furthering the human position as residing outside of the “othered” realm of nature. This argument is eloquently highlighted by a quote from Morton (2007) when he says, “Putting something called Nature on a pedestal and admiring it from afar does for the environment what patriarchy does for the figure of Woman. It is a paradoxical act of sadistic admiration.” (Morton, 2007, p.5) The work of philosopher Slavoj Žižek (2008) takes this thought to a much more radical end. If we truly embrace that humans and subsequently our actions are not separate from the natural world then we must acknowledge (even embrace) that the Anthropocene is a “natural” progression of ecology. Žižek argues that when ecologists criticize the industrialisation and polluting of the world ecologists are telling a story akin to the fall of Adam and Eve, and indeed many within the movement speak of our future in a similarly biblical fashion “...we are fast approaching our day of reckoning.” (Liftin, 2014, p.30) Žižek’s argument can perhaps be summarized as the view that contemporary ecologists are not really telling us anything new or offering a radical solution. Their placing of human practices as an unnatural destructive force, out of harmony with an otherwise “balanced” world is in fact predicated on a distinction between humans and nature. Where human actions are somehow adrift from the natural order of things. Žižek’s description of the world as an inherently destructive place with no natural sense of continuity or immortality does challenge the underlying ontological assumptions of many within the ecological community. This is not to say that the goals of ecologically driven intentional communities are negated or not noble, but it does call into question the assumed naturality they offer. Sustainability itself is not an inherently “natural” predilection. It is not unfair to say that the current literature regarding intentional communities and ecological anthropology as a whole is dominated by those who take an active role within the movement. As such many fall under this ontology and fail to acknowledge its place as one of many, no more logical or justified by nature than any other.
While intentional communities are numerous and to some extent unique in their composition, the prolific expression of themes such as sustainability and stewardship do seem to provide a level of generalisation. While intentional communities to some extent challenge mainstream political and spiritual paradigms of the relationship between humans and nature it is questionable as to whether they are truly free of the nature-society dichotomy. Following Pálsson’s categories of human-nature relations, intentional communities would appear to have some of the aspects of the communalism category, however are more fitting within the notion of paternalism. Sustainability and stewardship both hold underlying assumptions that rest on a division between humans and nature. Mainly a separation of human action from how an ideal nature “should” be. Sustainability also implies a view of the earth as a naturally sustainable entity from which humans have drifted from and must be brought back to. As Žižek (2008) has noted this is a viewpoint which is not as necessarily intrinsic or obvious as it is regularly purported. As such the claims made by Van Schyndel Kasper (2008) and to a lesser extent Lockyer (2007), that intentional communities challenge the nature-culture dichotomy, cannot be fully supported. While the actions of intentional communities are based on ideas which stem from a paradigm of human-nature separation this does not necessarily negate their objectives. However, anthropologists moving forwards should take care not to privilege current viewpoints prevailing from the ecological movement and should analyse underlying ontologies as thoroughly as they would communities less close to home.
Originally written March 2016
References Brown, S.L., 2002. Intentional community: an anthropological perspective. SUNY Press.
Christian, D.L., 2007. Finding community: how to join an ecovillage or intentional community. New Society Publishers.
Cloughjordan Ecovillage. (2014). Become a Woodland Guardian. [online] Available at: http://www.thevillage.ie/become-a-woodland-guardian/ [Accessed 1 Apr. 2016].
Descola, P. and Pálsson, G., 1996. Nature and society: anthropological perspectives. Taylor & Francis.
Greenberg, D., 2013. Academia’s Hidden Curriculum and Ecovillages as Campuses for Sustainability Education. Environmental Anthropology Engaging Ecotopia: Bioregionalism, Permaculture, and Ecovillages, 17, p.269.
Hart's Mill Ecovillage and Farm. (2016). The Hart's Mill Community - Hart's Mill Ecovillage and Farm. [online] Available at: http://www.hartsmill.org/ [Accessed 1 Apr. 2016].
Hubbert, M.K., 1956. Nuclear energy and the fossil fuels. Presented before the Spring meeting of the Southern District, American Petroleum Institute, Plaza Hotel, San Antonio, Texas. San Antonio, Texas.
Ivakhiv, A., 2007. Religion, Nature and Culture: Theorizing the Field. Journal for the Study of Religion, Nature and Culture, 1(1), pp.47-57.
Litfin, K.T., 2014. Ecovillages: Lessons for sustainable community. John Wiley & Sons.
Lockyer, J.P., 2007. Sustainability and Utopianism: An Ethnography of Cultural Critique in Contemporary Intentional Communities. PhD diss., University of Arizona.
Lockyer, J. and Veteto, J.R. eds., 2013. Environmental anthropology engaging ecotopia: bioregionalism, permaculture, and ecovillages (Vol. 17). Berghahn Books.
McCright, A.M. and Dunlap, R.E., 2000. Challenging global warming as a social problem: An analysis of the conservative movement's counter-claims. Social problems, pp.499-522.
Merriam-webster.com. (2016). Definition of STEWARDSHIP. [online] Available at: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stewardship [Accessed 1 Apr. 2016].
Miller, T.S., 2012. The hippies and American values. Univ. of Tennessee Press.
Morton, T., 2007. Ecology without nature: Rethinking environmental aesthetics. Harvard University Press.
Paititi-institute.org. (2016). [online] Available at: http://paititi-institute.org/stewardship/ [Accessed 1 Apr. 2016].
Pálsson, G., 1996. Human-environmental relations. Nature and Society. London: Routledge, pp.63-81.
Rome, A., 2003. “Give Earth a Chance”: The Environmental Movement and the Sixties. The Journal of American History, 90(2), pp.525-554.
Simmonds, R., Richardson, J and Harder, M. 1976. “A Jesus Movement Group: An Adjective Check List Assessment”. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 15 (4).
Stevenson, D., 2014. Out to Change The World: The Evolution of The Farm Community, Book Publishing Company.
Van Schyndel Kasper, D. (2008) Redefining community in the ecovillage. Human Ecology Review, 15 (1). pp. 12-24. Žižek, S., 2008. Nature and its Discontents. SubStance, 37(3), pp.37-72.