Longing for Community

Posted on August 6, 2007 by Dave Pollard

We all long intuitively to be part of a natural, loving, self-selected community. This is the way we lived for almost all of humans’ time on Earth, until civilization changed all that a few short millennia ago. So what’s holding us back?

I think part of it is that there are so many people to choose from, today, to make community with. In pre-civilization times, and in indigenous cultures, you were born into a community and, from puberty on, you had only two choices — stay with it or leave. Communities were sufficiently small that it was easy to know everyone in the community well, so that choice was pretty simple. The concept of monogamy is, most anthropologists now seem to think, a consequence of civilization and the need to reduce sexual competition when we started to live in settled towns, with strangers. So when it came to selecting partners for sex and for work, pre-civilization humans had their entire community to draw upon, and didn’t have to choose. Except for the brief and natural pair-bonding just before and just after a woman’s pregnancy, pre-civilization cultures were polyamorous, not just in the sense of being sexually promiscuous (the word means ‘shared equally’, not excessively or indiscriminately), but in the broader sense of deeply loving everyone in the community.

This community-wide love-bond makes Darwinian sense — it would be hard to imagine a better recipe for evolutionary success than a community whose members loved each other intimately and passionately, and were not restricted in sexual activity to monogamous pairings. These communities would look after each other diligently, raise all their children collectively, and (since love brings with it joy) do whatever it took to keep the community healthy and thriving.

I suspect we still have the instinct for this type of community coded in our DNA, which is why civilization culture leaves us full of longing, and produces unnatural stresses and antagonisms (jealousy, loneliness, envy, distrust, greed, acquisitiveness etc.) because of the way it compels and constrains us in how we are allowed to live, work, socialize and behave. We intuitively want to belong to community, not family, not city, not country.

Most intentional communities fail. Even die-hard enthusiasts of the concept admit this, and try to help those looking to create and sustain such communities to learn from these failings.

I would argue that the reason they fail is not that people don’t work hard enough at them — if they are natural human social arrangements they shouldn’t have to be hard work. They should be easy, and fun. I would suggest they fail because (a) they don’t have the right people in them, and (b) people have unreasonable expectations of them (i.e. they create or join them for the wrong reasons).

In our modern civilization we don’t love people easily. We tend not to give love until there is some reciprocity; we’re stingy with it. We frown on both emotional and sexual promiscuity (again in the broad meaning of the word, not its modern negative connotation) — it is seen as a sign of immaturity, naivety, insecurity, unfaithfulness, even mental illness. This is all part of the civilization indoctrination we get from birth, what e e cummings calls “making us everybody else”. We don’t trust others implicitly. We move around so much that we get to know thousands of people superficially and very few people intimately. We are pushed into monogamy, and restrained by the limits of ‘family values’, to love only one person (or at least, only one at a time), which means we get very little experience or practice loving, and as a result we never get very good at it.

The people I have spoken to about intentional community tend to like the idea conceptually but be very idealistic about who their community might contain and how it might work. Almost everyone wants it to contain lots of people their own age, and lots of young, physically attractive people of the opposite sex. They want it to be industrious (everyone doing their share of the work needed to ‘maintain’ it) and intellectually stimulating. They want its members to be open and generous.

This is a fantasy, not a vision. It is precisely this absurd level of expectation that causes so many marriages to fail, or to be miserable for one or both partners. It is a recipe for disappointment.

The only social construct that we exempt from these high expectations is friendship. We love our friends without demanding so much. This isn’t because we’re easier to please when it comes to friendship than we are marriage. We’re just more accepting. We demand less because we’re happy with less. This has more to do with abundance than fussiness: If a friend lets us down, we always (most of us) have other friends. Not so (for most of us) with lovers — they’re always in short supply. Furthermore, we tend to ‘make’ friends when we share experiences with strangers — friendships emerge, they are discovered, not chosen.

I suspect that if most of us were to try to imagine who we would have in our ideal intentional community, after getting past the fantasies anyway, we would fill it with people we could imagine having as friends. That is where the ‘age thing’ comes in, I think — we are so sorted into age cohorts in our modern world (nursery schools through to work peer groups and even alumni groups) that we tend to think of friends as being people of our own age, because these are the people we spend most of our lives with and share experiences with. We tend to make few friends among those of other generations because we share so few experiences with them. As a result ‘generation gaps’ are huge, because there is no shared life context, and hence no mutual understanding.

In fact I think we are inherently capable of becoming close friends with almost anyone, of any age. We are made to make friends — we are by nature a social species. Put two strangers together and have them share meaningful experiences and chances are they will become close friends. And I think the suggestion that few people can provide intellectual stimulation to those of us who are experienced, informed and curious, is sheer arrogance.

Another issue in our choice of community members is beauty. We are repulsed by ugliness (and even, in today’s demanding world, by plainness), by the manifestations of physical old age, and by frailty (physical and mental). So ideally we want all our community members to be young and beautiful — even if and when we are not. There is some evidence that in pre-civilization communities beauty was much more common than it is today (because the more attractive and healthy people had the most children, and fewer of them at that). But although a proportion of all age groups in pre-civilization cultures died prematurely (mostly by being eaten by predators, a few from diseases when conditions were overcrowded), these cultures had lots of octogenarians (until the malnutrition and disease that came with civilization made old age, until very recently, a rarity). Somehow they must not have found old, naked, healthy, physically fit bodies repulsive, which suggests that our modern aversion to old bodies has more to do with their flab and their manifestations of civilization-caused diseases than with lack of smooth and supple skin.

The third issue in our choice of community members is industriousness — we don’t want those we live with to be lazy, or messy. We want them to ‘do their share’ of the work that must be done. This, too, is a modern social malady. There is no need for us to have to do much work at all if we agree to live a radically simple life. If we don’t have a lot of things we need to buy or maintain, there is no need to work to buy and maintain them. All we really need is food, which is insanely plentiful and cheap, and modest, maintenance-free shelter, which is today technologically simple to create. Everything else we can make or do for ourselves, if we want it, and comfortably do without if we don’t. Almost no work is required, so we should not care how industrious our fellow community members are.

So while I would want my intentional community to include those I already love deeply (provided they were prepared to join an intentional community with me), I am not at all fussy about who the rest of its members are, as long as they are natural people — by which I mean curious, imaginative, observant, open, generous, healthy and fit. Beyond that the community should be diverse in age and gender, and able to agree on a fairly simple set of values and principles for living together. That’s all. This is the way we lived, joyfully, lovingly, for most of the millions of yearsbefore civilization.

How hard should it be now?

Category Building a Community-Based Society

This entry was posted in Collapse Watch. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Longing for Community

DeLayne says:

August 7, 2007 at 07:51

I commend the author of “Longing for Community”. I found it easy to read and thought provoking. However, I sure wish I knew who the author was??? It would be very helpful to be able to attribute these good ideas to a real, warm person. Might I also suggest that when appropriate that the names of other authors be mentioned within an article. Such attribution would help me broaden my base of reading and understanding. Hugs… and thanks much! DeLayne
Janene says:

August 7, 2007 at 10:44

Good show Dave!I have been exploring the polyamory communities and other ‘alternative lifestyle’ groups for some time now, perceiving that our inability to love one another easily is one of the big failings we need to overcome. Unfortunately — though to no surprise — I’m finding that (on average) the problem is just as widespread in these groups as any other. So at the end of the day, it really does come down to finding individuals that we can love (in whatever way/all ways) and live with and share a general worldview with….. all the technical stuff, as you say, is easy.Here’s to the hope that one day we can find those people and situations :-)Janene
I agree says:

August 7, 2007 at 13:52

One problem I had was with your notion of worthiness tied in with being “fit”.That is civilized baggage .Fat phobia has infected so many people. Did tribes just kill off thier injured disabled or sick community members? Did they? Is that OK with you?Or did the more thriving tribes find every member of the community that was pro-social added VALUE to the tribe? What of tribes that viewed a disfigured body and different mind,claiming all had reasons to be here and rights to live and be loved? What you said about”fit” is so civilized of you. It is in our damaged world,such a soul killing fantasy you say.Your article spoke to my heart up to the line about “fit” We as a species are DAMAGED most of us bear some kind of disfigurement from life forced to be lived this way. Be it in mind or body. And you and I both agree we need each other to recover. What arrogance! You say you face health threats of your own ,you are “learning to relax” ect.Yet you too carry scars and you want everyone you would consider YOUR friend in YOUR community to be”fit”? Autocratic anyone? That is another reason intentional communities fail.Some self appointed judge starts sorting people based in lookism and appearances .Here the civilized malady you can see in age discrimination,but you blind yourself to when it comes to size or disability discrimination..and that civilized bigotry has already taken root inside you.My vision for whom I would want in a community would be simple.Condensed into a sentence. An asshole free zone.http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=276×900A place without psychopaths, narcissists or authoritarian personalities.Notice it is directed at people who lack compassion lack internal sense of empathy,cheats and abuses of trust, people power and any community they enter.Often these toxic personalities come in fit bodiesand are charismatic and can be your best buddy as they tear your world apart. I see a different place.A refuge from empire,it may look very similar to your”vision” but it is not like yours. This place is to love and be loved, as in friendship regardless of scars, fat, twisted spines or broken hearts.We are what we are and we are human we need to be loved like everybody else does..The unfit are always the hated target of social Darwinism do you believe in social Darwinism? Nature or civilization will kill the fit and unfit all the same. To me quality of life and sharing that matters more than anything else.Would you have all the retarded people excluded? How about people with limps? Are gays trans genders or people with deformed spines unwelcome? What is the weight limit for those who would apply for your friendship? 10 lbs over the insurance company originated BMI scale? 20,30,40,100?Do you get what I am saying about how you are already mimicking the civilization that crushes all of us?? We do not choose what body we get born into or our upbringing,it takes a lifetime to undo the damage..We can’t easily change life styles as much as we THINK we can.We do not control reality as much as we wish we did.The ego is a little monkey terrified riding the back of a tiger(the unconsious) This monkey insists it is king of tigers..It is lying.Many people are infested with a form of ignorance called Pronoia.It has motivated every utopian public health reform that has led to much real life suffering. One way to have healing really happen is to discard picking and people sorting based on things superficial. Someone heavy who can’t do much labor what is it to you? Doesn’t that clash with your part about not caring about others industrialness? Fat people don’t eat as much as fat phobics say they do. Fat people feel the hatred this civilization heaps on us all more than you will ever know.And fat people can be strong deep hearted freinds.They can even be beautiful too..Fat people as well as disabled ones have a purposein thier existance and something to give to a community not too bigoted and small to people sort based on’fitness’.Tribal people did they just kill off the fatties? How many Hawaiians and eskimos would be left? And what of the nomadic tribes that found fat attractive?A community needs to find what makes a community thrive..And it’s not fit bodies and open sex by itself.. but respect of what a person IS,without controlling them to fit into what you would prefer they be,as in making everyone else be YOU.. And clear BOUNDARIES upon bad people who have no compassion for the weakest among us.Psychopaths sociopaths narcissists authoritarians bullies..These are the personalities that DESTROY communities and build empires.How much are you thinking like empire? I saw it in your article. Would you really exclude to the point you would not make friends with anyone different in appearance and shape than yourself? Maybe I don’t want the kind of friendship your”tribe offers”. You expect others meet a certain type of”worth”,in a certain way,and when I saw that I saw your tribe might be just like every other civilized relationship based on control does..What I am desperately trying to get away from so I can heal the wounds being forced to live this way has done to me, Consider the wounds you carry,and realize they speak louder than your vision. Here is why.http://journals.democraticunderground.com/undergroundpanther“Empathy is antithetical to control, which is why control systems demand psychopathy as the standard mode of function.Keep hierarchy and contractual obligation prostrate before caring, compassion, and a heart-felt responsibility for all life.”
Siona says:

August 7, 2007 at 19:30

I’d venture that one of the difficulties involved in creating any intentional communities is due to the nature of those drawn to them. Those of us seeking solace or salvation in community (and there is, I think, something important there! M. Scott Peck wrote that “in community lies the salvation of the world,” and I, personally, don’t disagree) sometimes look to the community to be the healer, instead of working on healing ourselves. If there’s an issue that arises, it’s the community–or some scapegoat in the community–where we place the blame, rather than us accepting responsibility for our own role.I say this as someone with a background in community building, and someone who has witnessed the sweet and eerie inevitability of patterns of group dynamics regardless of the individuals involved. There’s an odd balance or paradox to be found in the radical personal responsibility necessary for community, and the reverence and appreciation of the group or community as an entity unto its own. Anyway.I feel I am a part of a natural, loving, self-selected community. I live on this planet–and I’m the only one that could hold myself back from feeling this way. To me, it seems, we are already in community–how can we be otherwise?–and it’s only a matter of waking up to this.
Dave Pollard says:

August 7, 2007 at 21:27

DeLayne: I’m the only author on this blog, except for the comments. A sub-community of one ;-)Janene: Thank you!I agree panther guy: I think you miss my point. Fitness is a measure of self-respect and self-responsibility. It has nothing to do with beauty or appearance, and you can be heavy and still be fit. When Darwin wrote of ‘survival of the fittest’ he didn’t mean slim or strong, he meant adaptable. And I know that many people suffer from chronic diseases that must be self-managed (as you’ve noted, I’m one of them). As long as people are taking responsibility for their own health, and looking after their bodies, and not expecting the rest of the community to look after them, in my view they’re fit. If it’s ‘arrogance’ to expect people to self-manage, as best they can, to treat their bodies with care and respect, well, then I guess I’m guilty.Siona: Exactly. Wanting a community to be able to support and heal us is just one more unreasonable expectation that we have of communities. We should not be looking to communities for salvation. They are for learning, for work-sharing, for collaboration and innovation, for the joy of social interaction, for friendship. And although I feel I am part of the community of all-life-on-Earth, I think we all also need to belong to a more intimate community, one where we know and love and live with and learn together, physically in one place, home. Until I moved away (physically and psychologically) from the tumult of crowded civilization and discovered real community I may have had a sense of that, but I didn’t really ‘know’ it.
I agree says:

August 8, 2007 at 07:45

As for “self management” I agree with you up to a point. Self management in the character department is most important. However some though they try fall short of managing they cannot understand they are not managing or they slip in and out of psychosis.When they can manage they are great people when they can’t they can’t.That’s when the community needs to help.Everyone has limits on what they can and cannot manage. Grief can shut someone down as if they were sick or had a broken leg..The main thing I think matters is in how they manage socially. A person with schizoprenia for instance might not manage well during a psychotic break but when they are past the point they are great people,maybe a little”flat” but they care. That’s the thing we don’t just manage ourselves we help each others not by just managing ourselves because that is what we suffer from right now, we must help each other to manage not in a busybody way but in a way that the other person accepts that is not coercive or controlling. It means giving up control over who they are.And to do that the whole community must understand what a psychopath,authoritarian and narcisstic personality IS and is not.Than they can keep psychopaths,authoritarians and narcissists out of the community and check those behaviors in themselves and others..Those inevitable patterns are caused by certain personality types among ones not like them,who turn a community into a little Stanford prison experiament.And the”normal” among us are suspect as much as anyone else is.It all rests on character and self managment,yes, but also remember the unconsious too, it has motives and drives out of our awareness,and also be aware of the way is clings to outmoded defenses,it too does what”works” and what “works sometimes is not what’s needed,knowing yourself is partly about knowing the differences of and when your own motives work or don’t and why.You have to learn to accept what you are even the parts you don’t like or would rather not be.You can try your best but sometimes the unconsious makes you do what you do not want.It’s true.Once you accept yourself that deeply you lose that urge to scapegoat because you see yourself in the scapegoat too much to attack the weaker ones anymore.I brought up what I said before because I needed clarification on what you meant by “fit”.Now I understand and you meant self management skills not a sorting box.