The Genius, Power and Magic of the Intentional Family

The Genius, Power and Magic of the Intentional Family

A.

Allen Butcher

Denver, Colorado, USA

May, 2008

Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it.

Boldness has genius, power and magic in it!

— Attributed to Johann Wolfgang von Goethe,

but may have been by John Anster, see:

http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/W. _H. _Murray

http://www. goethesociety. org/pages/quotescom. html

Amazing how the times have changed! It was said by the futurist and

communitarian William Irwin Thompson that change begins in mysticism

and popular culture, followed by change in science, technology and

economics, and then when the forces of change are widespread in

society, only then does politics change.

1 Many of the changes in

awareness and values that began in the 1960s and ..70s may have

essentially followed Thompson's process, finally getting to the

political level in this new millennium with the apparent ending of the

Republican era and the rise of a new Democratic era in national

politics, along with state political re-alignments.

It's as though

the desire for change in America has been so pent up that the

political cycle of Presidential elections itself is providing the

stage for cultural change to find expression.

Today it's no small, radical voice off in the marginal cultural wings

advocating change, it's an opera of media stars of all kinds at center

stage, with full chorus and symphony! Green advertising is

everywhere! Corporations are now utilizing green marketing in every

way they can think of applying it.

Energy conservation, the

antithesis of the traditional business model of the oil and electrical

industries, is now being advocated as a patriotic duty, along with the

generation of alternative sources of energy.

Recycling is becoming a

more important source of valuable materials as demand for them

outstrips what is available through resource extraction from nature.

Locally produced food and organic agriculture are increasingly being

recognized as solutions to the problem of energy-intensive production

and distribution of food.

And species extinction is being seen more

commonly as the proverbial caged-canary-in-a-coal-mine giving warning

of impending disaster.

There were many early warnings of ecological problems and resource

depletion given in the late ..60s and early ..70s, from Rachel Carson's

"Silent Spring" to the Club of Rome's "Limits to Growth.

" 2 Yet it

took 40 years for Thompson's cycle of change to move these concerns to

the top of the agendas of our most influential economic and political

institutions.

It is a relief that progressive change is finally

spreading throughout our culture, considering that many of us have

been concerned about these and related issues since the ..60s.

No doubt, this is a time of massive and powerful change! Any of our

cultural assumptions that can be shown to be problematic may now be

added to the litany of contemporary challenges.

Although at some

point the sheer volume of change factors may become an over-load for

some people, it is likely that we are only at the beginning of the

need for finding solutions to a cascading series of crises moving

through our culture.

It seems clear that this is not merely a time of short-term change,

instead, the challenges to our cultural assumptions and established or

traditional ways of doing things will likely be successive and

transformational.

If this is the case then we would do well to

consider what other proposed solutions exist that may effectively

address current concerns and stresses.

The Diffusion of Cultural Innovation throughout our Society

Given that in general people in our culture are now more open to

considering a range of solutions to our many problems, this appears to

be the perfect time to present the view that many of our problems can

be alleviated, if not entirely solved, by fundamentally changing our

values structure from an emphasis upon possessiveness and competition

to expressions of sharing and cooperation.

The general method for

doing this is another of the ..60s cultural movements called

"intentional community.

"

This cultural movement is actually comprised of several cultural

models including the ecovillage, community land trust, cooperative

housing, cohousing, communal society, therapeutic community,

conference center, spiritual, and other forms of intentional community.

General theories of social change 3 suggest that there must be long

periods of cultural preparation in order for substantial change to

have the deep roots needed to avoid or resist backlash and reactionary

movements.

Then there must be sufficient motivation for change, at

the same time that clear, attainable and desirable goals and

strategies are presented.

Since many of the changes in our general

cultural attitudes that we are seeing today began or became widely

understood in the ..60s, and since there is currently a general

awakening to motivations for making changes, then in order to take

advantage of this favorable time for consolidating cultural trends

into long-lasting changes, what remains is to present desirable goals

and strategies in ways that affirm that they are clearly attainable.

The past several decades of experimentation with various intentional

community models, along with other forms of cultural change such as

the trend toward a partnership society as women assume more positions

of power, along with the increasing prevalence of non-traditional

family models, has essentially provided much preparation for lasting

cultural change.

A motivation for making change in our values

structure and way of life is also apparent given how people are

turning to green lifestyles.

What remains then is identifying,

articulating and diffusing communitarian innovations throughout our

society.

The question is how best to advocate and to support cultural

innovation? There are many possible strategies, yet there is one that

is particularly auspicious.

People often become energized by things

perceived as being new.

Even if an idea isn't new, simply packaging

and marketing an old idea in a new way can elicit the same kind of

excitement.

An excellent example of an obscure community design becoming a

successful movement is cohousing.

Started by small groups of

activists in Denmark in the 1960s, the design was adopted by academic

associations, government agencies and for-profit corporations.

Enterprising American architectural students packaged and marketed

this community design they found in Northern Europe in a way that

would appeal to American mainstream culture by giving it a catchy name

along with a unique identity, while insisting that cohousing is not a

form of intentional community.

Instead they coined the term

"intentional neighborhood" in order to differentiate cohousing from

all other models of intentional community.

Although there are aspects of the design of cohousing that help to

make it successful, it is the packaging and marketing that makes it

the fastest growing intentional community movement.

New ideas have to

be diffused throughout the culture through some form of advocacy, and

in this the cohousing movement has excelled.

This is done by the

movement through attractive, well designed, glossy books and

magazines, conferences with dynamic speakers giving a range of

inspirational and informative presentations, and the support of many

professional services from architectural and real estate development

to legal and financial resources.

All of these qualities make it

possible for the cohousing movement to grow at about ten times the

speed of other intentional communities of comparable size, since

cohousing communities create in a few years what other community

designs have taken a few decades to create.

Given this history of the development of the cohousing community

movement, there is reason to believe that it would be possible to

create a new community movement via a similar process.

To develop

such a new movement the first requirement is to better understand

cohousing and its relationship to the larger communities movement.

Two Definitional Problems of Cohousing: Semantics and Labor Systems

It is the efficacy of the cohousing community design that earns for

the movement its success, yet what is most fundamental about the

cohousing community design is not unique to that form of community.

On the cohousing website, and in its books and other publications,

there are six criteria presented for the definition of cohousing,

covering issues of governance (criteria 1, 4 and 5), social and

economic structure (criteria 4 and 6), and land use and architectural

design (criteria 2 and 3).

These six classic cohousing criteria are: 4

1.

Participatory process

2.

Neighborhood design

3.

Common facilities

4.

Resident management

5.

Non-hierarchical structure

6.

No shared community economy

Communities not following any one of the classic criteria ought not

refer to themselves as cohousing communities, yet some do.

Thus,

another term could be developed to refer to these non-cohousing

communities.

Such communities, and even a non-cohousing community

movement, could still be successful if they followed two critical

elements of cohousing.

It's ironic that one of the most important elements in the foundation

of cohousing is often overlooked when people explain what is

cohousing.

This aspect of cohousing's foundation is often expressed

in the negative, when people affirm that cohousing is not a "commune.

"

This is to say that there is no commonly-owned property in cohousing,

yet this is never expressed in the positive or assertive view that one

of the most important foundational elements of cohousing is the

sharing of privately-owned property.

The assertion that cohousing is not communal is extended to the denial

often made by cohousing advocates, on their website and elsewhere,

that cohousing is not a form of intentional community.

As stated on

the cohousing website, "Some people involved with cohousing like to

describe their communities as ..intentional neighborhoods.

' By

contrast, ..intentional communities' frequently connotes a shared

religious, political, environmental or social ideology rather than

simply the desire to have a strong sense of community with your

neighbors.

" 5 This results in a false dichotomy when cohousing

advocates redefine the term "intentional community" away from its

original intended meaning, which is inclusive of the cohousing

communitarian model.

As stated on the website of the Fellowship for Intentional Community,

"An ..intentional community' is a group of people who have chosen to

live together with a common purpose, working cooperatively to create a

lifestyle that reflects their shared core values.

… This definition

spans a wide variety of groups, including (but not limited to)

communes, ecovillages, student cooperatives, land co-ops, cohousing

groups, monasteries and ashrams, kibbutzim, and farming collectives.

Although quite diverse in philosophy and lifestyle, each of these

groups places a high priority on fostering a sense of community...." 6

The "strong sense of community" affirmed in cohousing is itself a

"shared core value" as affirmed in intentional community.

It would be unnecessary for cohousing advocates to state the logical

fallacy of the false dichotomy if they simply were to affirm that

cohousing is predicated upon the practice of the sharing of

privately-owned property in its community design, as opposed to the

sharing of commonly-owned property as in communal society.

The

difference between sharing privately-owned property and sharing

commonly-owned property is the true dichotomy and avoids any false

assertions.

Presumably, cohousing advocates utilize the false dichotomy because

they have found no better way to differentiate the cohousing design

from "commune.

" Clearly, cohousing is not communal, yet as presented

in cohousing criterion number three, cohousing advocates make liberal

use of the term "common," specifically: "common facilities," "common

house," "common kitchen, dining area, sitting area, children's

playroom and laundry and also may contain ….

" 7 This is a semantic

problem in the definition of cohousing.

The second important, foundational element of cohousing is the form of

labor system used by cohousing communities, which constitutes the

second definitional problem of cohousing.

Essentially, cohousing

communities utilize a labor system which may best be called

"labor-gifting.

" 8 Practically every aspect of cohousing can be

explained as intended to support and encourage the voluntary

contribution of labor by members to their community, or labor-gifting.

The fourth of six listed criteria for cohousing states that

"residents … perform much of the work required to maintain the

property.

" Explaining how this labor is encouraged and facilitated,

by contrasting labor systems in cohousing against those in communal

"egalitarian communities," is the subject of a paper called, "Gifting

and Sharing: Living the Plenty Paradigm in Cohousing and Communal

Society.

" 9

Cohousing shares this aspect of labor-gifting with all forms of

intentional community except for those that use labor-sharing systems.

Labor-sharing involves a required labor contribution in order for

members to maintain their standing in the community.

Communal

societies typically use some form of labor-sharing system, yet even

collective communities such as forms of housing cooperatives may use

labor-sharing, and some cohousing communities are also essentially

using labor-sharing, as opposed to labor-gifting, when they institute

a policy of placing liens against a member's cohousing unit, or

require a monetary payment or other punishment, if a member/resident

does not voluntarily contribute to community labor projects or services.

The issue of labor systems in cohousing becomes the second

definitional problem of cohousing when the system utilized moves from

labor-gifting to labor-sharing.

This occurs once labor contributions

are no longer strictly voluntary and instead are coerced, as presented

in the previous paragraph.

When cohousing communities utilize

coercive systems (also called "rational altruism" 10) rather than

voluntary systems (also called "pure altruism" 11) such as punishment

of members for non-compliance with a labor system, they move closer to

the communal design of labor-sharing.

In communal society, punishment for chronic non-compliance with the

labor system is generally expulsion, while in cohousing community the

punishment as suggested above is typically a monetary fine.

Cohousing

members may challenge in court the right of their cohousing community

to levy such fines against them, in which case the definitional issue

of "collective community" versus "communal community" with respect to

cohousing versus communal society may some day become material to a

legal precedent.

Sharing Property and Labor

The two foundational elements of sharing privately-owned property and

of practicing labor-gifting are critical to cohousing as well as to

many other forms of intentional community.

Therefore, these two

elements may be affirmed as essential to the question of how best to

employ intentional community in the furtherance of the cultural

changes sweeping through our society.

As stated earlier, cohousing is not the only community design

utilizing labor-gifting and the sharing of private property, yet no

other such community design has any where near the success of

cohousing.

The obvious conclusion would be that in order to best take

advantage of these changing times to create a greater expression of

sharing and cooperation in our culture a new community movement may be

established which shares the same basic foundational property and

labor designs as cohousing, yet which is the opposite in any or all of

the six criteria used in the definition of classic cohousing.

By creating a new community movement which is the antithesis of

cohousing the new movement may take advantage of the tension in the

communities movement around the issues of what is and what is not

cohousing, and around how cohousing advocates choose to define their

form of community.

Creating an anti-cohousing movement, and using such a phrase in the

marketing of that new community movement, essentially uses the

gravitational mass of the popularity of cohousing to launch a new

non-cohousing movement to a faster and closer orbit around the sun of

media attention.

Hopefully, the resulting media play will benefit cohousing, the

pseudo-cohousing movement, and the larger communities movement as a

whole, as long as the dynamic tension created is done so in a mutually

respectful and appreciative manner.

Essentially, the proposition is to manipulate the media to report on

the intentional community movement by playing up a good-natured,

mutually-respectful form of rivalry between the cohousing and the

cohousing-lite movements.

For this some good thinking will have to go

into creating clever media ploys and wily guerrilla marketing

campaigns for advertising the … what exactly is it to be called?

Intentional Family and the Equity-Linked Affinity Network

So far in this paper the new community movement has only been referred

to in contrast with cohousing.

Clearly it will need another name that

does not incorporate the term "cohousing.

" As proposed elsewhere, the

following two names are suggested.

First, since classic cohousing does not include any specific

spiritual, political or other orientation, the new community movement

would encourage communities to assert some such affinity or shared

identity, perhaps via a "statement of shared beliefs" or any form of

social contract.

Second, since the new community movement would share

with cohousing the aspect of members sharing privately-owned property,

through forms of group real estate investment or syndication like the

limited liability company (LLC), or like the condominium legal design

favored by cohousing communities, then taking these two criteria

together the acronym created is "ÈLAN," for "equity-linked affinity

network.

"

ÈLAN communities, as the antithesis of cohousing, would then be able

to take off on cohousing's assertion that it is an "intentional

neighborhood," by affirming that the ÈLAN model is that of an

"intentional family.

" This fits well with the ÈLAN criteria that each

community may create for itself a particular identity through any form

of statement of shared beliefs, since such a statement affirms a

closer, more intimate relationship among members than is generally

found in cohousing communities.

As with cohousing, there is really nothing new about the ÈLAN or the

intentional family community model, except the name.

The definition

of "intentional family" would be, "three or more adults affirming a

common identity or affinity, sharing real estate equity and practicing

labor-gifting.

" And as with cohousing, all that may be necessary for

the intentional family or ÈLAN community model to be as successful or

even more so than cohousing, is for the idea to be packaged and

promoted with the kind of brash, self-assertive marketing campaign

that would befit its name!

To start that ball rolling, here's one marketing idea for the bold new

ÈLAN model of intentional family, passed on to us from the famously

innovative 19th Century intentional community called Oneida, or the

Society of Perfectionists.

In their 1862 newsletter called the

"Oneida Circular" they wrote that, "a fine estate is not a capitalist

treasure but a natural commodity within the reach of a community of

modest means.

" 12 For ÈLAN intentional families a fine estate may be

enjoyed by any group of people of modest means effectively practicing

the sharing of privately-owned property and cooperation through

labor-gifting.

Thus may begin the first new intentional community movement of the

21st Century, a bold new dream of employing the genius, power and

magic of intention to the challenges of the new millennium!

***

Invitation

To facilitate conversations and potential collaborations among readers

of this paper you are invited to join an email list:

http://groups. yahoo. com/group/thefecwide/join

or

Send an email to: thefecwide-subscribe@yahoogroups. com

***

1 Thompson, William Irwin. 1971.

"At the Edge of History:

Speculations on the Transformation of Culture.

"

2 Carson, Rachel.

http://www. rachelcarson. org and Club of Rome,

http://en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Limits_to_Growth

3 Butcher, A. Allen. 2005.

"Mass Movement Manual: Shared Leadership

in our Time of Change." Self-published.

www. CultureMagic. org

4 See: http://www. cohousing. org/six_characteristics

5 See: "Intentional Neighborhood" at http://www. cohousing. org/glossary

6 See: "Intentional Community" at

http://wiki. ic. org/wiki/Intentional_Communities

7 See: http://www. cohousing. org/six_characteristics

8 Butcher, A. Allen. 2007. "Gifting and Sharing." Self-published.

www. CultureMagic. org

9 Butcher, A. Allen. 2007. "Gifting and Sharing." Self-published.

www. CultureMagic. org

10 Butcher, A. Allen.

See: "Rational Altruism" in the Glossary at

www. CultureMagic. org, and in "Gifting and Sharing"

11 Butcher, A. Allen.

See: "Pure Altruism" in the Glossary at

www. CultureMagic. org, and in "Gifting and Sharing"

12 Hayden, Dolores. "Seven American Utopias." Page 198.

http://groups. yahoo. com/group/INTENTIONALCOMMUNITIES/message/4718

Interested In Intentional Communities? In Living In One?

http://groups. yahoo. com/group/homeineden [Essence-of-Eden]