permaculture

[Chad Knepp <pyg@galatea.org>]

Great stuff here Rain and Golden!  Your thinking is very parallel to
my own experience and analysis.

Rain Tenaqiya writes:
 > In the hyperindividualistic and isolating culture of Industrial
 > Growth Societies (IGS), many people go to the opposite extreme by
 > supposing that humuns used to live communaly and by trying to
 > "recreate" such communities.  However, my understanding is that in
 > most pre-industrial societies, including foraging and horticultural
 > cultures, the basic social unit is the extended family.  While
 > people may live relatively intimately in large groups (50- 500),
 > the extended family is the group primarily responsible for
 > procuring food, creating shelter, and bringing home fuel.  Even in
 > places like India, today, most people decide upon a career and a
 > partner based upon family networks and expectations and live in
 > households with extended family.

Yes, I think this model has a lot of potential and should be
considered when designing intentional community.  I suspect that as a
societal model it has roots in history so ancient that we probably
have developed an innate need for these releationships.  Tony Sirna
wrote a little paper on a design characteristic of Dancing Rabbit
<http://www.dancingrabbit.org/vision/SOC.html> that is an interesting
read although DR hasn't really ended up this way.  

One necessary change in this model, at least in the short term, is
that I think the extended family unit will need to self select and
will consequently not have the blood bond commitment/loyalty of a
biological family.  Achieving the necessary trust, commitment, and
cohesion to function like a family unit is a daunting but not
insurmountable prospect, not unlike a marriage commitment.  Marriage
in an IGS is not a great example because it not highly valued or
respected.  In an IGS 'personnel units' are expendable and replaceable
so getting to this place of togetherness from our inculturation of
individualism has been and will be a challenge.

 > In IGS cultures where the individual is superceding even the
 > nuclear family as the basic social unit, it is tempting to try to
 > create a "tribe" and expect that everyone will pitch in equally
 > together and follow the motto "from each according to one's
 > ability, to each according to one's need."  However, we did not
 > grow up with such an expanded sense of self, and with all the
 > choice and mobility of the dominant culture around us, there is
 > little pressure to truly develop such a sense of self.  Most
 > alternative communities don't last very long, or have very high
 > turnover rates, partly because of this situation.

Yes, our upbringing and existing cultural pressure has a lot to do
with the problems you mention in communties.  I also think that the
egalitarian moto 'from each.. to each.. according to need' is not
really understood and embraced in very many communities also do to
cultural norms of productivity.  My own reading of this moto is as
statement of support for diversity, acknowledging that people have
different contributions and needs.  Many communities interpret and
implement it as support for equality and fairness along the lines of
everyone must contribute at least this and is entitled to these
benefits.  Many communists states have failed certain socialist ideals
along this line.

I have only really experienced what I consider true egalitarianism in
one small group of 7 adults and 1 child where there was both
acknowledgement and acceptance of different contributions and needs,
particularly in areas of physical work and entertainment/travel.  I
suspect that the building the relationships that can support
egalitarianism is an effort that can only be accomplished by a fairly
small family like group.  ymmv.

What my 'family unit' chooses to use to achieve an environment of
egalitarianism is a commitment to process (ie engaging on things that
are hard, radical honesty), interpersonal love, and a love of the
'family unit' in the sense that you even when you can't stand a
certain sibling/relative you still love them... basically a commitment
to creating and perpetuating the 'family unit' as a social structure
with its accompanying security and comfort.

 > It would be an interesting study to recreate the setting of the
 > permaculture design course that Toby Hemenway mentioned a couple
 > weeks ago (where placing names on tea cups determined whether or
 > not they would be maintained) in several different cultures to see
 > how the tea cups were taken care of.  One pattern that emerged
 > among alternative communities in IGSs was for people with
 > caretaking personalities (usually womyn) to take over the
 > maintenance jobs, while others (often men) took care of the
 > "important" things (such as socializing and making decisions).  How
 > would it be in rural Mexico, India, or Cameroon?
 >  
 > There is no right way to organize cultures, but I believe that a
 > balance between communality and individuality is crucial, and will
 > depend upon the cultural backgrounds of the people involved.  The
 > "tragedy of the commons" occurs on a wide scale in societies where
 > a culture that respects the commons has broken down.  On the other
 > hand, numerous "communist" states and intentional communities have
 > demonstrated the problems created when individuals or families do
 > not have some kind of "ownership" of materials, space, jobs, or
 > whatever, that enables them to express choice, initiative, diverse
 > methods, and responsibility and the ability to reap the rewards for
 > their stewardship.  Humuns are not cows or sheep.  We need to be
 > able to express our individuality in the wider context of belonging
 > to society.
 >
 > Rain

Golden Love writes:
 > There are many successful intentional communities that have been
 > around for years and, of course, they ebb and flow like all of
 > life. My sense is that people are longing for community, especially
 > in the U.S., where families have become so separate. People are
 > finding that the "hyperindividualist" life style is not that much
 > fun or enriching. One of the major reasons that intentional
 > communities break up is because they need to develop more
 > communication skills. My interest in forming an intentional
 > community is because I will get the wonderful opportunity everyday
 > to connect more with people, to learn how to listen, cooperate, and
 > find common ground.
 > 
 > Golden

If this conversation has piqued the interest of others, a small group
of people including myself are forming a community in NE Missouri
using the above described model of 'family units' sharing land by
consensus as a larger group.  We are really looking for existing
families although we are open to starting a dialog to help individuals
find their tribe.  Let's talk.

-- 
Chad Knepp
perl -e 'print pack"H*","7079674067616c617465612e6f72670a"'