When I was in high school and then in college (the first time), trying to figure out what to do with my life, I decided that I wanted to learn how people can live in cooperation, since I perceived that so many problems seemed to come from the competitive nature of the dominant culture and its monetary economics.
So I went to the largest university in my state thinking that there must be something covering my field of interest, yet I found that no one taught classes in cooperative culture. Decades later I found that some small liberal arts colleges in my state and elsewhere did approach the issue in the 1970s, and some state universities have developed somewhat of a communitarian focus since.
Being frustrated in college (I took more philosophy courses than anything else, yet what could I do with a philosophy degree?), I decided that I would go where ever people were living in cooperation and learn what I thought was important on my own. I began researching and traveling the country looking for the most exciting communitarian project to join. Eventually I settled upon East Wind Community in the Ozark Mountains, in a rather remote location where during the 1970s and ‘80s I agreed with the REO Speedwagon lyrics that we were, “Not missing a thing. Watching the full moon crossing the range. Riding the storm out!” However, East Wind did not turn out to be quite what I or others there at the time hoped it would be. Yet East Wind has survived now over 40 years, which shows that we did learn something about cooperation!
Decades later I am again looking for the most exciting communitarian project in the country.
My focus on the issue of human cooperation has led me to a few realizations about communitarian culture which is now helping me to identify the most exciting communitarian project of the twenty-teens. While I will not go into all of that now, I will refer readers to a book which I began writing at East Wind in 1980, now recently published.
As I found that there was no really good textbook on communitarianism I decided to write one, which I’ve now recently published, some 36 years later. I have now for sale the best textbook available on the subject of communitarianism, although it is not yet in the most usable form, as it needs an index and to be printed on paper, yet for now it is available as an Amazon ebook titled: “The Intentioneers Bible.”
Since I now have the textbook, eventually to become an online course, I am beginning to develop my work into an educational project which I am calling “The School of Intentioneering,” with programs to be developed such as the “Utopia Writers Guild,” “Cofamily,” “Partnership Spirituality,” and the “Regional Commonwealth.”
The latter of the four projects mentioned above is my current template for “the most exciting communitarian project in America,” which is a local group of intentional communities working together as a decentralized network in a given locality. This is actually an old idea, going back centuries and maybe even millennia, so it is nothing new, and there are several such local networks around America. Some of them are comprised of groups of cohousing communities in a given area, some are collective or householder communities around a spiritual center or monastic society, and some are of different types of intentional communities in a given area, whether collective, communal, or economically diverse. Someone could write a book on that topic, however, for now I’ll jump to the conclusion and say that I think that the most exciting communitarian project in America is the group of mostly communal intentional communities around Twin Oaks Community in central Virginia!
I am now in the process of divesting myself from the hot real estate market in Denver, Colorado to invest whatever I can in a Virginia community. However, real estate in rural central Virginia is not cheap, as shown in the graphic accompanying this article. $8,000 per acre for undeveloped land can be called an inflated market! My current plan is to get myself to Virginia and look around for what is available with the proceeds from whatever I can get for my house in the city.
I hope to find others with whom to invest in land for a new communal, income-sharing community to be part of the network around Twin Oaks Community. Of course, this is just an idea at the moment, yet for a timeline I hope to be able to purchase a property before the end of 2016, depending upon what is available.
I am hoping to develop my writing and educational efforts into an income source for an income-sharing community. I am therefore hoping to find writers, graphic artists, educators, or other communitarians with whom to collaborate to create both a community and an educational project about community.
If you are interested in being part of “the most exciting communitarian project in America,” please get in touch!
A. Allen Butcher • Utopia Writers Guild • School of Intentioneering • Denver, CO • July 2016
Each of us sees things that others cannot, or have not yet. So the challenge is to interest others in and to teach what we see through our personal, unique perspectives of the past, present, and future. Utopian literature provides methods for presenting ideas about alternatives to the dominant culture and projections of positive futures. To encourage people to share such perspectives and projections a project of the School of Intentioneering is to inspire and support a “Utopia Writers Guild.”
To support writers of positive or idealistic societies and to counter the influence of the dystopian paradigm, where what we always see is DE-ATH, or “Done Everything—Away To Heaven,” it would be helpful to have a support group that will encourage and review the work of those who write with a positive utopian theme. The Guild is intended to celebrate writings about idealistic societies, whether real or fictional, supporting the ambition to LIVE FREE in communities where what we see is that “Labor Is Valued Equally, For Realizing Economic Equality.”
Valuing all labor equally involves the use of labor systems in place of wages and salaries, which pushes monetary economics out of communal societies. Yet not all utopian writings involve communalism, some develop the idea of a perfect monetary system that supports tribal or neo-tribal cultures while safeguarding the environment rather than destroying it. And that is clearly an utopian ideal!
The Utopia Writers Guild is an initiative of the School of Intentioneering intended to support writings on the differences, similarities and interdependence of the dominant culture or First World with the alternative or parallel culture of the Fourth World. As there are many such differences and similarities, the Guild is developing programs to focus upon contemporary, historical, and fictional countercultural traditions. The primary resource for this work is “The Intentioneer’s Bible,” which includes the themes of: tribalism and neo-tribalism; the rise and development of monetary economics; women’s spirituality and aspects of feminism that value the partnership of women and men; worker and consumer cooperation; and the many forms of intentional community including ecovillages, community land trusts, cohousing, cofamilies, cooperatives, and communalism.
The mission of the School of Intentioneering is to teach people about Fourth World communitarian or intentional community traditions in relation to the dominant market-based culture of the First World. The First and Fourth Worlds are parallel cultures, both moving apace with the other through time. While at times the differences between the two are expressed in conflict, each culture often learns from and adapts aspects of the other.
One of the primary dichotomies between the Fourth and First Worlds is how each compensates labor. While the dominant culture uses differential wages, paying differing amounts for various types of work in a debt-based economy, the parallel culture values all labor equally through time-based economies using labor-gifting and labor-sharing. This is the red line between monetary economies and communal economies. Rather than paying money, communal society compensates labor through member’s access to the wealth of communal services. This difference does not exist in all of the Fourth World as sharing privately-owned property is more prevalent than sharing commonly-owned property in the counterculture, yet it makes a very clear line of division between the two primary economic and cultural paradigms. These reflect the two cultural values of competition and exploitation, and of cooperation and mutual aid; the two of which usually avoiding destructive conflict by emphasizing their interdependence.
While any other inequality may exist, the feeling that “we are all in this together” is maintained in the Fourth World as long as everyone benefits either according to their personal needs or in the same way as everyone else in the society. In the Fourth World this is done through forms of time-based economies of gifting and sharing, while in the dominant First World the monetary system accommodates ever greater disparities in wealth among people. The monetary economic system of the dominant culture provides for differential compensation for labor, resulting in everyone being in the monetary system for themselves.
The dominant culture has its spokes persons and media outlets, which the parallel culture needs as well. To provide for this the School of Intentioneering is both a school-of-thought and an educational organization teaching gifting and sharing partnership culture in the competitive, dominant society. For teaching Fourth World lifestyles the School of Intentioneering provides two online books. The first is free for download in two-dozen PDF files at: CultureMagic.org The second is not free and is currently only available as an ebook at: Amazon.com
The book “Culture Magic” covers almost every aspect of communitarianism except childcare, a topic which is being developed for a future work. However, the material in “Culture Magic” on the history of communitarianism has been greatly expanded into the new thousand-page book, “The Intentioneer’s Bible.”
“The Intentioneer’s Bible: Interwoven Stories of the Parallel Cultures of Plenty and Scarcity” is an alternative history of civilization, presenting how the dominant and the alternative cultures have developed apace through time, beginning in our prehistory through to today, with the final section of the book being projections of the future. To support the use of “The Intentioneer’s Bible” as a textbook for an online class, scripts for videos can be written, produced, and shared on YouTube. Beyond that, scripts for full-length movies based on various stories found in “The Intentioneer’s Bible” can be written, with these writers becoming part of a Utopia Writers Guild.
The School of Intentioneering serves to teach people about alternatives to the dominant culture. The two online books currently available in the Intentioneer’s series present alternatives to the dominant culture of Western Civilization including: an economic system based upon time rather than debt for creating gifting and sharing economies; a political system affirming that the primary dichotomy is between participatory and authoritarian forms of governance as a more definitive method for emphasizing individual sovereignty than the usual liberal versus conservative dichotomy; and a religious tradition emphasizing partnership between women and men rather than patriarchy. With alternatives developed for the three primary cultural aspects of economics, politics, and religion, the focus can then be upon writings that present and discuss the issues of children and family in community, which will begin development with a project of the School of Intentioneering called “cofamily.” Cofamily may be seen to become the first new intentional community movement of the 21st century.
The problems and challenges in the world today are easy to learn about in the mass media, and sometimes simply by looking outside one’s door. Solutions also seem to be easy to find; just figure out for whom to vote, then go back to sleep.
However, trying to figure out what are the causes, meanings, and solutions for the problems we see can keep a person awake with the complexity, complications, frustrations, contradictions, and deliberate diversions from the truth that are everywhere. Yet many of our contemporary problems are not new, some of them never went away, while others keep getting worse. So if it helps, please keep in mind that people are living lifestyles today that have been found in the past to successfully aid people in surviving similar tribulations.
Many people through the past up to the present have found that an effective method for responding to the challenges of the day is to work, play, and live together in small, extended-family-like community. This seems to be a simple idea, given that for tens of thousands of years of our prehistory humans lived in small-groups, like clans and tribes, yet applying a cooperative lifestyle to our contemporary, competitive world can be a difficult challenge all its own. For this we need to know what successful communitarians have learned about living in community in the 21st century.
The problem, of course, is that we cannot see the future, and so it can be helpful to look to the past to identify trends, both in the progression of problems as well as in the evolution of the solutions. To help you with this the present author recently completed a very long book tracing and explaining the history of communitarianism through all of human civilization! Communitarianism is not a short story; it is actually comprised of many short stories, some of them very beautiful, others so dramatic they will tear your heart out. The book is titled, The Intentioneer’s Bible: Interwoven Stories of the Parallel Cultures of Plenty and Scarcity, available at $9.99 as an ebook on Amazon.com, which permits interested people to read for free the first 80 pages or so of the book.
While The Intentioneer’s Bible covers the history of communitarianism, and projects some of the paths through the future for building communitarian lifestyles, called “intentioneering,” there is another book that focuses upon detailed descriptions of the current communitarian movement. This is the Communities Directory, the seventh edition of which is to be available in July (discounted pre-sales are available for $30 at: http://www.ic.org). Further on in this article is a study of the communities movement using information published in earlier editions of the Communities Directory.
Considering relatively recent American history, with regard to increasingly difficult economic conditions, consider what Robert Reich and others have explained, that in the 1950s and ‘60s a person, usually a man, could get a job that paid enough to support a house-wife and a couple children, and stay with it his entire career. Then beginning in the 1970s this ideal began to fade. Wages stagnated while the cost of living rose, so much that the wife could no longer stay at home and had to also work in order to maintain a middle-class or even a working-class lifestyle.
Two-income, two-car families became the norm. Who then minded the children? First it was the television, now the Internet is the surrogate babysitter. Of course the best thing to do is to find other compatible families with whom to share childcare, and this is where intentional community comes into the story.
From reading the history in The Intentioneer’s Bible of the origins of the cohousing community movement in Denmark, one finds that a big reason for the design and growth of the cohousing movement was to create child-friendly communities for young families. It worked so well in Denmark that Americans began to apply the community design here around 1990. As shown in the study of the data from the Communities Directories (below), cohousing is now the fastest growing intentional communities movement in America! The same is probably true around the world.
Cohousing communities are also some of the largest new communities listed in the directories, and it is amazing to see how effectively the cohousing movement uses standard professional services for building community, including architects, builders, developers, lawyers, and bankers. Cohousing has done wonders for the communities movement, except that it is expensive to buy into a cohousing community. One has to have a middle-class income to be able to help create a new cohousing community, unless one can wait a few years until people want to move on and rent out their cohousing unit. Yet there must be a better way for lower-income people to also enjoy community for themselves and their children. Who is working on identifying that community option? Do we need a new communities movement that can help working-class people provide for themselves what the middle-class has created for itself? Creating working-class community should be easier now with the example of the success of cohousing community for the middle-class.
The trend seems to be clear. In the ‘50s and ‘60s one income-earner per family was enough, then from the ‘70s through the twenty-teens two income-earners per family have been needed. With housing and other price inflation continuing, now the American family needs more than two income-earners. Increasing the minimum wage certainly helps, yet how does the “American Dream” family, that patriarchal ideal of the nuclear family, add income earners? And if it manages to do so, is it still a “family?” Perhaps the need is to come up with a new form of family for responding to the challenges of the new millennia.
Three or more adults working and living together for mutual advantage is called an “intentional community.” Community, then, is the answer! People simply need to be aware of this lifestyle option, and need to learn what others know about creating small, extended-family-like communities, because many expect that the need will be escalating through the future. Consider the following demographics.
According to U.S. Census reports and other studies, half of all marriages end in divorce, one-third of all adults in America live alone, one-third of all women with more than one child had them with more than one man (called “multiple-partner fertility”), one-quarter of all children live in single-parent families, and half of those children live in poverty. These are the statistics on the American family, showing that the American Dream of the happy nuclear family is not working for many people. These statistics can be interpreted so as to present the case for community, or at least some form of collective family that does not rely only upon marriage and biology, instead a form of family that emphasizes adults’ commitment to the domestic living group or community they create. (See references at the end of this article: Guzzo, 2014; Logan, Manlove, Ikramullah, & Cottingham, 2006; Martin, 2011; U.S. Census reports)
While the traditional nuclear family will never go away, extensions of it have always existed. The term “extended-family” means including other family members, like aunts, cousins, grandparents, or grandchildren of the nuclear family in the same household. More and more, however, the desire and need is to include with the biological family other non-biologically-related adults, especially if they also have children, for two reasons. One is in order for parents to be able to help each other with childcare and other domestic labor, and the second reason is for people to be able to live with others of like mind. These “affinity-families” create intentional communities rather than extended-families, and since the biological and marriage ties are less emphasized, something else has to provide the glue or the rationalization for people to practice small-group mutual aid, which usually means finding common interests, values, or goals. These are the affinities among people important to the creation and maintenance of community.
With the conservative, religious-right defining the nature of the ideal or God-sanctioned “family” as being the nuclear design of father, mother, and children, a different term is needed for affinity-based families which can be comprised of any number of adults of either gender, with or without children. For this the term “cofamily” is offered.
The term “cofamily” has an obvious connection with the term “cohousing,” while the meanings are somewhat different. The Cohousing Association of the U.S.A. has a very limited definition for the term “cohousing,” with six specific criteria to which a cohousing community is expected to adhere. Many groups calling themselves “cohousing” do not follow all of these criteria, and so a different name is needed for their type of community. Essentially, any small group of people whose community does not fit the classic cohousing model (explained on the cohousing website and in The Intentioneer’s Bible) can instead call themselves a “cofamily community,” or simply a “cofamily.” Like with an extended family, a cofamily is typically comprised of fewer than ten adults, while ten or more adults can simply use the term “intentional community.” An intentional community is defined as three or more adults, yet for small groups the cofamily name suggests a more intimate lifestyle. In fact some people actually leave cohousing community in order to find a more intimate form of community, which requires a smaller group. Cofamilies of 3 to 9 adults can provide more intimacy in relationships than do large groups.
While the term “cofamily” is not yet an established term for small communities, the need for focusing upon the development of small communities is growing. Between the surveys made of the communities movement for the 1990 and the 2010 communities directories, the number of small communities of from 3 to 9 members grew by almost two-and-a-half times. This need to concentrate upon developing an identity or tradition for small intentional communities may result in cofamily becoming the first new intentional community movement of the 21st century.
The Communities Movement in America
In the 2010 Communities Directory published by the Fellowship for Intentional Community (FIC), the population total for American communities with more than 2 members is: 21,660 people. In the 1990 Directory of Intentional Communities that total is 8,054 people. So the increase in population in the communities movement (or at least its reported population) in those 20 years was 269%.
In the 2007 Communities Directory Laird Schaub, then the FIC’s executive director estimated that there is 100,000 people in the American intentional communities movement. The actual count of 21,660 people, or about one-fifth of the estimated total, is a reasonable representation for a movement that typically prefers to be quiet, unobtrusive, or hidden. The rest will have to be assumed, because we know that there are always more communitarians than are willing to be counted, or that even know about the larger movement!
Consider that excluded from this 100,000 population figure are the 11,000 or so Hutterites, a movement which started with 16th century Anabaptist Christians, now in the northern plains states, although most Hutterites live in Canada. Then there are also about 2,000 Christian Bruderhof members in America, a movement that started in the 1930s and affiliated with the Hutterites. While a few Hutterite and Bruderhof communities are listed in the FIC directory, most are not listed or counted. So we can estimate that there is somewhere around 13,000 Hutterite/Bruderhof members in America.
Add to that count the Catholic monasteries which alone comprise about 88,000 people. The best source for this number available to the present author is the 2014 article written for the Pew Research Center by Michael Lipka titled, U.S. Nuns Face Shrinking Numbers and Tensions with the Vatican. The term “nuns” is misleading as that term refers to the cloistered sisters insulated from worldly influences. The term “sisters” is the generic term including both cloistered nuns and other women religious living in convents and working in Catholic schools, hospitals, nursing homes and other worldly activities. In his article Lipka explains that the number of Catholic Sisters dropped precipitously from a population of about 180,000 women religious in 1965 to about 50,000 in 2014, a 72% drop in fifty years. This information was reported by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University.
The primary reason offered by a reader (Emmett Coyne) of Michael Lipka’s article for explaining the drop in the number of Catholic women in religious vocations, is that after 1965 women began to enjoy opportunities to have careers and lifestyles which they did not have earlier. Women had entered Catholic monasticism for the education and the opportunity to be leaders in their communities, and once that was possible in the dominant culture they lost interest in religious communalism. This says that for most Catholic Sisters, other than cloistered nuns, it was not about religion, or about having Jesus as their bride-groom, or about service to the community, instead the allure of Catholic monasticism for women was about getting out of the house!
Neither was Catholic monasticism more than nominally about celibacy, as a reader’s comment (by Fred Jones) on Lipka’s article states that a survey by researchers at St. Louis University commissioned by “several orders of Catholic nuns” found that 40% of all Catholic sisters report having experienced some form of sexual trauma “at the hands of priests and other nuns.” The report was not published, although it has been acquired by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Sexual harassment of women may be another reason why Catholic Sisters give up their vows, and it may help to explain why the drop in priests (women cannot be priests in Catholicism) is only half that of women during the same fifty years. Catholic Orders of women always have to be under the oversight of male priests.
Another important consideration offered by a reader of Lipka’s article (George Waite) is that there are now more Catholic Sisters over the age of 90 than there are Sisters under the age of 60. Interestingly, the same dynamic of most members leaving while the remaining members age and are not replaced by younger members was experienced by the Shakers.
The drop in male priests in the same fifty years between 1965 and 2014 was from about 59,000 to 38,000. This includes both diocesan priests or those who lead the Catholic community, and the religious priests who live in monasteries.
Adding together the 100,000 estimated non-Hutterite and non-Catholic-monastic communitarians with the 13,000 Hutterites/Bruderhofers and the 88,000 female and male Catholic monastics totals to a little over 200,000 people, or around a fifth-of-a-million people living in some form of intentional community in America. Again, a few small Catholic monasteries appear in the FIC directory, yet not many.
Since intentional communities involve gifting and sharing economies, partly to minimize use of monetary economics within their communities, like what many Native Americans practice on their reservations and elsewhere, the population of Indian Reservations may be included along with that of the communitarians. According to the USA Census Bureau, there are about 1,144,000 Native Americans on reservations. Add that to the fifth-of-a-million communitarians and we now have about one-and-a-third-million Americans (1,344,000) living at least partially outside of the dominant culture’s monetary system.
Since the population of the USA is somewhere around 324 million people, 1.3 million people in gifting and sharing societies equal less than half-of-one-percent (0.4%) of the American population. Although this is quite a small proportion of the population, it is very important to know that these alternatives to “business as usual” do exist, since whatever your background or proclivities, there is probably a community somewhere that you and your family would fit into. Or if not, you could always start your own gifting and sharing culture with like-minded people when you need or want more of a community than what you’ve got.
That 0.4% of America comprises the American portion of the “Fourth World,” while the dominant culture of the 99.6% of the American population comprises the American part of the “First World.” These are political-economic terms. The 1st World is the global system of neo-liberal market capitalism, while the 4th World may be defined partly as comprised of small, non-monetary economies based upon gifting and sharing in community. Small countries or “micro-states” are also included in the 4th World.
Keep in mind that while people are born into Native American Fourth World culture, most non-Indians who comprise the intentional communities movements, religious or secular, are born into the dominant, First World culture, and become Fourth World when they join or create intentional community, thus leaving the First World to create the counterculture or parallel culture.
For a little more perspective, consider that the total of active-duty and reservists in the American military is around 2 million people. Also consider that military personnel are engaged in a form of communalism, since everything they do and have is government property, which is a form of commonly-owned property. Military personnel do get paid, in the same way that some who live communally get a small allowance, although like some Wal-Mart workers, some military folks do not get paid enough to live on and so sometimes have to get food stamps and other welfare assistance. So actually, the military is something like an authoritarian intentional community (remember that Catholic monasticism had its military orders like the Teutonic Knights and the Hospitallers of St. John), yet a person can get too liberal with the use of the “intentional community” term, and so it is necessary to affirm that the military ought not to be considered to be part of the counterculture.
A way to think about the similarities between the military and the Fourth World, is that while we need a military for some important things in our culture, we also need a counterculture, or as I prefer to write, a Parallel Culture, because people always need to have a choice of lifestyles from which to choose. Youth, especially, needs an alternative to being part of the 1st World that they grew up in. Youths often look for a way out of the “Matrix,” and the Parallel Culture provides a peaceful option for that, as opposed to anti-social activities like becoming a criminal extremist, mass-murderer, or fanatical terrorist! So yes, we need an alternative culture in some ways as much as we need a military.
Another corollary is that in America there are about 2 million people incarcerated in our jails and prisons. This we do not need, and hopefully with the end of marijuana prohibition many of these non-violent people will be freed! What will they do when they get out once marijuana is legal? How will they fit into the dominant culture, and what is the chance that they will want to fit in? If they want or need an alternative to the dominant culture, they can be offered America’s 4th World communitarianism!
In some ways the 4th World is a “through the looking glass” world, an alternative culture that any of us can step into at any time to get at least part way out of the dominant culture. Some of us actually have figured out how to live in both worlds, with one foot in each! Cohousing community does this better than any other, and that is part of why cohousing is the fastest-growing communitarian movement in the world. Another big reason why cohousing is so successful is that it involves the gifting of labor and the sharing of private property in community.
As the cohousing movement clearly shows, people are not as much interested in working to create communal societies based upon the sharing of commonly-owned property, as they are collective communities based upon the sharing of privately-owned property. For this reason cofamilies do not emphasize communalism, although that lifestyle option remains available for the building of communal cofamilies.
The remainder of this article presents information on the growth and development of the intentional communities movement, from small intimate cofamilies to large, bustling cohousing communities.
American Communities Movement Statistics
A survey done by the Fellowship for Intentional Community (FIC) for their 1990 directory counted 240 intentional communities with more than two members in the USA, and in 2010 the total was 679. The number of communities increased 283% during the twenty years from 1990 to 2010, while the total membership increased 269%. How much of this increase is from communities becoming aware of and being willing to be listed in the FIC directory, and how much is it from a growing communities movement? One answer comes from the communities’ founding dates.
There is a grand total of 845 unique communities listed in the two FIC directories (240+679-74duplicates=845). Observing their founding dates, the oldest community was founded in 1891, Synergy House Cooperative, CA. From each of the decades of the 1930s, ‘40s, and ‘50s less than ten communities have survived through to today. From the 1960s Baby Boom Cultural Revolution 26 communities still survive, and from the ‘70s 95 founded communities remain. The 1980s “Big Chill” resulted in only 67 founded communities surviving the decade, then from the 1990s with the advent of cohousing 155 founded communities exist today. From 2000 to 2006 170 communities were founded, averaging 24 new communities per year. Then with the Great Recession new community foundings doubled to 53 in 2007, and 44 in 2008! 2009 was the 2010 directory survey year, so no additional data is available until the next Communities Directory is published, expected in July, 2016.
74 communities appear in both directories (or 31%), although there are also at least 20 more communities in the 1990 directory that are known to still exist yet that opted out of the 2010 directory.
The “retention rate” or “survival rate” of communities from the 1990 to the 2010 directory is about 40% (74+20=94/240). The population increase in twenty years for just the 74 communities is 132% (from 2,423 to 3,195 members), which is about half of the growth rate of the whole directory, perhaps because these 74 are mature communities while most of the others are young.
Small communities (from 3 to 9 members) increased in number from 1990 to 2010 by 239%, and increased in membership by 238%, while at the same time the proportion of small communities fell from 47% of the 1990 directory to 40% of the 2010 directory. This is consistent with cohousing communities starting to be formed in 1989, which are typically larger than non-cohousing communities.
While the number of small communities (3-to-9 members) in the directories decreased, the number of larger communities (>9 members) increased from 53% in 1990 to 61% in 2010. Most likely this is due to the rise of cohousing communities, which typically have larger memberships than non-cohousing communities.
Cohousing Lists: Some of the communities in the FIC Directory are also on the CohousingUSA website list, and while there are 192 groups listed as “using the cohousing model” in the 2010 FIC directory, only 122 of these appear in the cohousing directory (June, 2016). Meaning that there are 70 groups in the FIC directory that have either been refused by or that have not asked to be listed by the cohousing association. There is a total of 200 communities listed in either the FIC or the CohousingUSA directories, and of these 114 cohousing communities appear in both.
The cohousing directory (at: www[dot]cohousing[dot]org) lists a total of 247 communities. Of the 247 communities in the Cohousing USA directory, 146 are listed as established, and 101 are forming. 143 are in the FIC directory and 104 mostly forming cohousing communities are not in the FIC directory. Of the 200 unique communities that either self-identify as “using the cohousing model” in the FIC directory or that appear on the cohousing directory webpage, 21 were founded before the publishing of the cohousing book in 1988 (1 of the 21 was founded in 1988). Thus, these groups discovered and adopted the cohousing identity after their founding. According to their reported founding dates, new cohousing communities were founded at a fairly steady rate of about 9 new communities per year between 1989 and 2009.
Cohousing Labor: Of the 200 cohousing groups listed in either the FIC’s or the cohousing directory, 25 or one-eighth (12.5%) state that they do not share labor, which is contrary to the classic cohousing model. Twelve or nearly half of these 25 are listed in the cohousing directory. This could mean that these 25 communities do not require a labor contribution, yet no cohousing community can legally force residents to sell and move if they do not contribute labor. The FIC survey question was probably, “Are members expected to regularly contribute labor to the group?” What is the difference between a cohousing community that does and one that does not require a labor contribution? Perhaps a group that does not require labor is not a “classic cohousing” community, or perhaps the community pays for all its labor rather than rely upon volunteer, community labor.
Students and Ecovillages: Of 679 groups with >2 members in 2010, 25 communities or 4% self-identify as student housing, and 34 or 5% self-identify as ecovillages. There is no survey question for either of these designations, they come from either the name of the group or their stated “purpose” in the directory.
Governance: Of 679 groups with >2 members in 2010, 434 communities or 64% use consensus, 361 or 53% use consensus with no leaders or core groups, 214 or 32% use consensus with leaders or core groups, 422 or 62% have leaders or core groups, and only 29 or 4% use majority rule. Contradictory statistics either reflects ambiguous survey design and/or the flexibility and evolution of group process.
Sharing Labor and Income: Of 679 groups with >2 members in 2010, 566 or 83% share labor, and 89 or 13% share income (total income sharing is 5%, partial is 8%). In the 1990 directory 77% shared labor and 19% shared income (total was 14% and partial was 5%).
Land: Of 679 groups with >2 members in 2010, 42% or 282 groups are one of three types of community land trust models offered in the survey, yet what is the difference between “community-owned land” and a “land trust?” This is another ambiguous survey item, like cohousing labor, where different respondents may mean different things while using the same survey option, resulting in confusing information. 26% or 175 communities report that an individual or subgroup owns the land. 29% or 197 communities made useless responses.
Spirituality: Of 679 groups with >2 members in 2010, 261 or 38% are spiritual, 28 or 4% are spiritually-identified cohousing communities (classic cohousing communities are secular), and 120 communities or 46% are spiritual with no leader.
Out of 240 communities in 1990 directory >2 members: 134 were spiritual or ecumenical (56%). This reduction in the percentage of spiritual communities from 56% in 1990 to 38% in 2010 is partly due to the change in the survey question, since the type of religion is designated in 1990, while only the simple Y/N option was offered in 2010. However, the change is probably mostly due to most cohousing communities being secular.
Membership growth between 1990 and 2010 was seen by 54 communities or 23% of the 1990 listings. Membership decline between 1990 and 2010 was experienced by 20 communities or 12% of the 1990 directory listings.
Guzzo, K. B. (2014, July). New partners, more kids: Multiple-partner fertility in the United States. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci. Retrieved October 9, 2015, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4182921/
Lipka, Michael. (August 8, 2014). U.S. Nuns Face Shrinking Numbers and Tensions with the Vatican. Pew Research Center. Retrieved June 28, 2016 from: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/08/u-s-nuns-face-shrinking-numbers-and-tensions-with-the-vatican/
Logan, C., Manlove, J., Ikramullah, E., & Cottingham, S. (2006, November). Men who father children with more than one woman: A contemporary portrait of multiple-partner fertility. Child Trends research brief. Publication #2006-10 4301 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 350, Washington, DC 20008, 202-572-6000. Retrieved October 9, 2015,from htttp://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/2006-10MultiplePartnerFertility.pdf
Martin, M. (Host). (2011, April 19). Multiple partner families: More common than you think. (Radio broadcast) with Cassandra Dorius and Maria Cancian (Guests), National Public Radio News. Washington D.C. Retrieved October 9, 2015, from http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=135541549
http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/data/adults.html, figures: AD-3a, HH-6, HH-4, HH-7b
http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/data/children.html, figure CH-1; see also: America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2015 at http://www.childstats.gov/americaschildren/family1.asp
We can never have a truly egalitarian culture, in which women and men are considered to be equal in our economics and politics, until women and men are considered to be fundamentally equal in our religion.
One of the primary themes of The Intentioneer’s Bible is the partnership of women and men in the alternative or parallel culture, as opposed to the dominant culture’s patriarchal society. While a few anthropologists and archeologists have written that at least some early human societies began with a form of partnership between women and men―not a matriarchy, instead a partnership―nearly all egalitarian cultures were replaced by patriarchy along with the rise of monetary economics. Yet today and through the future partnership culture is returning and one of the methods of its return is intended to be with the aid of The Intentioneer’s Bible.
This is the first in a series of posts or articles on the theme, “Women and Men in Partnership.” This post, and the others to come, includes excerpts from The Intentioneer’s Bible. For this post the focus is upon the idea of merging Christianity with women’s spirituality, to arrive at an expression of Partnership Spirituality as a step toward its development through the future.
The term “partnership” assumes the synergistic combination of at least two entities, for example a woman and a man, although a partnership could also involve two people of the same gender, or more than two people of any gender. In the same way, on the level of ideas and beliefs, Partnership Spirituality seeks to marry patriarchal, revelatory religion with the intuitive nature of women’s spirituality.
While Christianity affirms that the source of spiritual truth and grace is through a process called “transcendence,” involving a spiritual entity giving to humans revealed truth, women’s or feminist spirituality affirms a different source for spiritual truth and grace coming to the individual through personal insight and intuition, called “immanence.”
Intuition can be thought of as a function of immanence, as it comes through our physical being, and by extension it comes through the Earth as the source of our physical bodies, which is generally considered to be a feminine trait and therefore associated with the feminine Goddess, while revelation is considered to originate from a transcendent source, and therefore associated with the masculine God.
The idea of Partnership Spirituality is to balance male and female aspects in one spiritual or religious tradition, which Rianne Eisler writes in her book, “The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, Our Future,” was characteristic of pre-historic societies in Europe and the Near East. The best such example is Minoan Culture from 2,500 to 1,400 B.C. on the Isle of Crete. Margaret Starbird takes up the concept of reclaiming the balance of feminine and masculine forms of spirituality, using the term “partnership paradigm” in, “The Goddess in the Gospels: Reclaiming the Sacred Feminine.” (p. 153)
Blending women’s spirituality with the patriarchal Judeo-Christian tradition has become a popular concept, with a number of different books developing this spiritual tradition, which is not new as it has a long series of historical antecedents. Besides the two books mentioned above, there is also: “Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians” by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy; “Embracing Jesus and the Goddess: A Radical Call for Spiritual Sanity” by Carl McColman; “Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel” by William Dever; “The Hebrew Goddess” by Raphael Patai; “Sophia: Goddess of Wisdom, Bride of God” by Caitlin Matthews; and “ChristoPaganism: An Inclusive Path” by Joyce and River Higginbotham. These and other books inform a growing network of email lists and blogs on the Internet, using many different names to describe this spiritual path.
In “ChristoPaganism” (2009, p. 277) the authors reprint Nancy Chandler Pittman’s list of terms used by various people for the blended path in her book, “Christian Wicca: The Trinitarian Tradition.” (2003, p. 13) These are: “Trinitarian Wiccans, Christo Wiccans, Goddess Christianity, Eco-Christianity, Green Christianity, Eclectic Christianity, Kabalistic Wiccans, Gnostic Christianity, Gnostic Wiccans, Grail Priests, WicCatholics, EpiscoPagans, Pagans for Jesus, Jewitches, Christian Craft Practitioners, and Christian Witches.”
Creating a new spiritual tradition of Partnership Spirituality may be nothing more than simply affirming a tradition that has already benefited by much development in our society. This ideal is actually poised for flowering in thousands of small groups dedicated to Earth-based spirituality around the country and around the world. And if or when brick and mortar facilities are needed, there are established churches that will likely be made available. In the late 1980s the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA) developed within itself an Earth-based, women’s spirituality tradition called the “Covenant of Unitarian Universalist Pagans” (CUUPs), and the UUA, along with Theosophy and some of the New Thought churches (within which the term “New Age” developed) like Unity Church, may continue to provide essential foundations and strengths for the growth of Partnership Spirituality.
While there may be no gender in the spiritual world, since gender exists for sexual reproduction during our material existence, there may be other differences in the spiritual world that align with gender in the physical world. This would be immanence or intuition aligned with the female gender, and transcendence or revelation aligned with the male gender.
In creating or recreating Partnership Spirituality the process begins with identifying how Christianity and women’s spirituality may integrate with one-another to create a 21st century partnership religion. As explained in some detail in The Intentioneer’s Bible, Christianity drew many aspects of its concept and practice of faith from pre-existing Pagan, Gnostic, Stoic, Persian, and Jewish religions, a process called “syncretism.” Reclaiming the partnership religion by combining aspects of Christianity with what is known about ancient forms of women’s spirituality essentially furthers the syncretic nature of Christianity now and through the 21st century.
The place to begin in merging aspects of women’s spirituality with appropriate parts of Christianity is with the correlation involving both religion’s expressions of their nature through their use of triple aspects. In Christianity this is the Holy Trinity, or Father, Son and Holy Spirit, while the Trinitarian theology is also seen in women’s spirituality as involving the three major stages of a woman’s life being, Maiden, Mother, and Crone or Grandmother. In some of the ancient Goddess traditions a different patron goddess ruled over each of the three stages of women’s lives, while in other traditions the stages of a woman’s life involved different aspects of the same Goddess.
Syncretizing the Judeo-Christian tradition with women’s spirituality in Partnership Spirituality involves marrying the three aspects of both, which is illustrated in the graphic accompanying this article. First, the Maiden, symbolized by the waxing crescent moon in the Partnership Spirituality graphic, is joined with the cross as the union of Mary of Magdala with Jesus of Nazareth, in Heaven if not on Earth. Second, the Mother is symbolized by the full moon representing Mary, mother of Jesus, with the Holy Spirit. In the Partnership Spirituality graphic, any number of images can be displayed within the image of the full moon. The graphic at the beginning of this article displays within the full moon the Taoist Taijitu or “yin-yang” symbol, partly to suggest the union of Eastern and Western forms of spirituality, yet also because the Taijitu is a beautiful representation of the dynamic relationship and interdependence of opposites, including: spirit and matter, male and female, and the syncretizing of patriarchal and of feminist spirituality, all in partnership for an egalitarian culture. Third, the Crone or grandmother symbolized by the waning crescent moon is joined with the Jewish Star-of-David to represent the union of God, Yahweh, or El with the feminine forms of divinity as Sophia, Shekinah, and Asherah. Thus is created the Marriage of the Trinities.
While Marrying the Trinities involves six aspects, or three sets of pairs, remember that there is in essence only two primary aspects, whether one prefers to call them intuition and revelation, or immanence and transcendence, or female and male. The result is the creation of a Binarian monotheism for the Partnership Spirituality tradition as opposed to the Trinitarian monotheism of the Judeo-Christian spiritual tradition. Since Christianity is considered to be a monotheistic religion even though it defines itself as being comprised of three aspects, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (i.e., Trinitarian monotheism), so also can Partnership Spirituality consider itself to be a monotheistic religion while affirming the six aspects of three pairs of corresponding attributes of Christianity and women’s spirituality (i.e., Binarian monotheism).
In affirming the Binarian monotheism of Partnership Spirituality the question soon arises as to which of the two trinities was developed first, and did either one borrow the idea from the other?
It is generally known from where Trinitarian Christianity originated, as it is documented as being accepted into Orthodox Christianity at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D. in opposition to Arian Christianity. (See The Intentioneer’s Bible for a discussion of the Orthodox and Arian Christian conflict.)
Determining from where the Triple Goddess concept originated is more difficult, although there is good evidence that it is very ancient, potentially originating during the late Neolithic Stone Age, if not earlier.
Following is an excerpt from The Intentioneer’s Bible explaining the source of the Triple Goddess concept as coming to us through an ancient teacher whom some of those reading this may have heard of, named “Pythagoras.”
*Beginning of excerpt:
“Pythagoras offered equal opportunity to women in his school and society, as Plato also did 200 years later in his Academy in Athens, following Pythagoras’ model. (Durant, 1939, p. 162)
“[H]e gave his women pupils considerable training in philosophy and literature, but he had them instructed as well in maternal and domestic arts, so that “Pythagorean Women” were honored by antiquity as the highest feminine type that Greece ever produced. (Durant, 1939, p. 162)
“The Pythagoreans developed a range of innovations in several branches of science including astronomy, anticipating that the earth is round, in geometry with the Pythagorean theorem, in mathematics with the classification of numbers between odd or even and prime or factorable, and in music with discovery of the arithmetical ratios governing musical intervals. Marcus Tullius Cicero’s “Discussions at Tusculum” states that Heraclides of Pontus, one of Plato’s pupils, credits Pythagoras with originating the words “philosopher” and “philosophy” from the Greek words which together mean the “love of wisdom.” (Durant, 1939, p. 164; Freke & Gandy, pp. 23, 219 n.84)
“From the Orphic mysteries through Pythagoreanism comes the love of Sophia, the Greek goddess of wisdom. Pythagoras’ name was derived from that of the Delphic Pythia, from whom he received his feminist ethics. (Eisler, p. 112; Schmidt, 2010, p. 40)
“Pythagoras traveled to many of the great centers of learning around the Mediterranean Sea, including Egypt and Babylon, and “Jewish scholars were even mentioned by Hermippus as being among Pythagoras’ teachers.” (Schmidt, 2010, p. 47) Pythagoras also received ethical and moral training from Themistoclea (sometimes spelled “Aristokleia,” Lipsey, p. 128), a priestess of the Oracle at Delphi, the Greek center of divine revelation and prophetic wisdom, originally dedicated to Goddess worship. (Eisler, pp. 70, 112)
“Pythagoras returned from his travels to his home on Samos where he started a school, then later left the island because of the oppressive tyranny of its ruler. He then founded his Pythagorean Society at Crotone in south Italy about 530 B.C., as a … mystery religion worshiping the feminine principle and inspiring the founding of many other religious communities around the Mediterranean. (Freke & Gandy, p. n.229; Eisler, p. 112; Schmidt, 2008, pp. 47-8, 54-5)
“Surprisingly, there is record of at least one thing that Themistoclea evidently taught to Pythagoras. Jane Harrison writes in her 1903 book, “Prolegomena to the Study of Greek Religion” (the word “prolegomena” meaning prologue or critical introduction to a larger work) that the goddesses reflect the lives of women, not the other way around, and a particular goddess rules over each stage of a woman’s life. (Harrison, 1903, p. 262)
“It is to Pythagoras … that we owe the fertile suggestion that in the figures of the women-goddesses we have the counterpart of the successive stages of a woman’s life as Maiden, Bride and Mother. (Harrison, 1903, p. 647)
“In other contexts the three stages of a woman’s life are portrayed as: maid, mother, and crone (or grandmother). Presumably, Themistoclea taught Pythagoras the concept of what Jane Harrison calls “Women-Trinities” as an ancient goddess tradition practiced before the change to patriarchal culture. Harrison notes that patriarchal marriage was instituted so that people would know who their fathers were. Thus, the Jewish Levite priests were not the only ones concerned about children’s inheritances. The Jewish people may have been the first to adopt the patriarchal cultural system, yet most cultures did eventually. (Harrison, 1903, p. 262)
“The ancient tradition of goddess Women-Trinities may have been preserved at the temple and oracle of Delphi from when it was originally practiced, perhaps in the late Stone Age, Neolithic era or “Golden Age.” Women’s spirituality was practiced at Delphi when the temple and oracle were originally probably dedicated to Gaia, or to another Greek Earth Mother goddess, later preserved by the priestesses even after the temple and oracle were re-dedicated to the male god Apollo. Themistoclea’s teaching of women’s spiritual traditions to Pythagoras helped enable the concept of Women-Trinities to survive into 21st century feminist spirituality as the “Triple Goddess.”
“Although it is unlikely that Christians in 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicaea adopted Trinitarianism as the foundation of Christianity in order to counter the Women-Trinity, in the 20th and 21st centuries the Women-Trinity has been suggested as a counter-point to the Christian Holy Trinity. …
“The name [Pythagoras] means “mouthpiece of the Pythian” oracle at Delphi. (Durant, 1939, p. 161)”
*End of excerpt from The Intentioneer’s Bible.
Clearly, the origin of the Women-Trinities concept is much older than the Christian Trinity, and there is no evidence that Christianity took the idea of spiritual trinities from women’s spirituality. Coming from totally different sources and traditions the two Trinitarian spiritual concepts are then merged into a new religion named by the present author, “Partnership Spirituality.”
Religion is not something that is set in stone; it changes with time as human culture changes. It is possible, then, to affirm the type of society in which we most want to live, by making the religion we practice consistent with that form of spirituality which best characterizes our beliefs. In this way, religion and spirituality can lead the way toward a partnership culture in which balance in all things is valued, not just in the relations between the genders, yet in all cultural dilemmas, such as between individualism or self-interest and collectivism or social responsibility, between natural law and positive law, between public and private, and between liberalism and conservatism. Partnership culture does not resolve these dualities, it serves to put them in the context of dynamic strengths rather than of debilitating conflicts, enabling each to contribute to the vitality of the whole. This is the intent of Partnership Spirituality.
The Love of Gifting and Sharing is the Root of Happiness! —The Intentioneer’s Bible
With the extreme left and right campaigning in the presidential election, people have opened to both liberal and conservative views which would not have gotten media attention in the past. While the left snuggles with socialism, the right flirts with fascism, and this disunion between liberalism and conservatism is an old story which can be seen in the politics of Ancient Greece and Rome, and probably in earlier cultures as well.
The left-right dichotomy of today is expressed in many different ways in America’s culture wars. On the most basic level of ideals, perspectives are divided between the classic concepts of whether the glass is half-empty, which is the familiar pessimistic, scarcity paradigm, or whether it is half-full, which is the less well explored optimistic, plenty paradigm.
Imposed scarcity through taking and exchanging is essential to the monetary system because one cannot sell abundance. The alternative counterculture affirms instead the ideal of plenty through gifting and sharing, showing that in the plenty paradigm neither money nor the property system is needed. These are old ideas, yet they replay in every era of civilization, and in every generation, as though there were no escaping reoccurring themes in human culture.
In times when I have tried to make sense of the world, I have thought to try to see and understand the cultural innovations for gifting and sharing lifestyles over the millennia, which have developed in parallel with the dominant culture of taking and exchanging. Yet I could not find a comprehensive source telling that story, as what exists about gifting, sharing, and cooperative cultures is much like random dots on a timeline with no discernible pattern or lesson of history. So I resolved to write the story myself, seeking congruencies and correspondences over time that I could resolve into lessons of history.
Thirty-five years of experience and research now provides me with perspectives on the development of human society that I have made available in a new book to share with others who desire to know the counterculture, titled, “The Intentioneer’s Bible.”
“The Intentioneer’s Bible” is essentially world history from the perspective of gifting and sharing societies. This book provides a counter-point to the usual histories of the world which focus upon the dominant, First World culture, telling instead the stories of the alternative, Fourth World culture of cooperation, solidarity, and mutual aid.
If a picture is worth a thousand words, then there are over 500 stories in this 1,100 page book of over half-a-million words, presenting interwoven stories of the two opposite yet linked worlds comprising “The Intentioneer’s Bible.” These stories describe the Fourth World based upon the plenty paradigm of gifting and sharing, versus the First World based upon the scarcity paradigm of taking and exchanging.
The First World is our familiar neo-liberal market economy, the Second World is state-controlled economies, and the Third World is the developing countries, while the Fifth World can be said to be terrorist states. In contrast with all of these, the Fourth World is comprised of small, more-or-less self-reliant countries, and of alternative cultures of cooperation and solidarity within much larger countries.
The pictures of the counterculture that arise from observing the points-of-light they create represents re-occurring themes in history, such as those of cooperation and solidarity involving people working together for mutual advantage rather than in competition. Following these stories through time creates a pattern of dots leading to pictures that we can understand today.
Among these dot-trails is one following the role of money and private property through the rise of civilization, while others comprise the pictures and stories of indigenous tribal societies, and still others follow the neo-tribal cultures that separate themselves from the dominant First World to join the Fourth World. Other dot-trails follow the role of children in society, and especially the story of women seeking to reestablish today the equality of the genders which people lived before the rise of the cultural hegemony of patriarchy.
In the past the goal of the counterculture was to separate as much as possible from the dominant culture. Following this idea the rural, self-reliant commune was the most effective method for realizing “The Communitarian Dream.” This social change strategy was followed by social reformers long before Christianity adopted the idea in the Early Christian Church, and in its later Catholic monastic and Protestant apostolic societies.
Beginning with the changes toward a secular society caused by the rise in the concentration of wealth among the First World economic elite, there developed the idea of the counterculture as leading social change toward an ever more effective method for separating from the dominant or main-stream culture. This method of social change is to learn to use the monetary system for building community among people.
The best such example today of social change through cultural innovation is the cohousing movement, which has been creating methods for engaging architects, builders, developers, lawyers, and even bankers and other financiers in the support for and construction of intentional community for the middle class! Community is not just for the poor, it is a lifestyle ideal which those with money can create for themselves, and help to create for others with fewer resources.
In the past the emphasis of the counterculture was communalism, or society without the use of money. Over time, experimentation with time-based economies eventually resulted in a break-through to the most effective non-monetary economy, which I named the “vacation-credit labor-sharing system” in order to emphasize the system’s motivation for working beyond a minimum number of hours of labor for earning vacation time. Much like how simple on-off electrical values create the incredible Internet, and how the simple idea of fractional-reserve banking creates our global monetary system, the solution for the communal economy is the simple idea of setting a “quota” of work hours required with anything done over that returning the personal reward of vacation time. Amazing how simple little things scale up to very big things!
Then came the idea of keeping only the land in communal ownership while all other property is private. This was a little better as in some ways community land trusts provide a good balance between the two economic paradigms of the First and Fourth Worlds, or dominant and alternative cultures.
Then came the cohousing movement in which there is no communal property at all, instead people share some of their private property with each other. Many people in the communities movements have been very surprised with how successful has been this model of community, involving labor-gifting in cohousing community as opposed to the labor-sharing of communal society. The same concept of labor-gifting is also found in the festival traditions of the Rainbow Family and Burning Man, the two attracting different social-economic classes yet creating similar festival cultures called “temporary autonomous zones.” Not only are people becoming more adept at redirecting the ideals, energies, and careers of professionals into support for the counterculture, yet also has the counterculture developed improved methods for working in cooperation and solidarity without the use of money.