“And me, I still believe in paradise. But now at least I know it’s not some place you can look for, cause it’s not where you go. It’s how you feel for a moment in your life when you’re a part of something, and if you find that moment... it lasts forever...” says Leonardo di Caprio at the end of the movie “The Beach”, upon return from a failed utopian island community. This statement, together with the whole movie, expresses a widespread conviction: utopian communities are bound to fail. “Paradise” is nothing that one can realize in an actual community. If anything, it can be realized as a feeling or a state of mind; but why do we think that way? Do we all feel that there is a sociological law that inevitably leads to the demise of a community that tries to realize the ideal society? Is this point of view empirically provable? These were the questions that intrigued me when I decided to make utopian communities my research topic; or, formulated into a single research question: Is there a single, most important feature or process that led to the demise or survival of former utopian communities?
To answer this question, we should first have a brief look at the great field of studies about the various kinds of utopias. This will help us achieve a better understanding and localization of the aspect of utopia we are looking at in this paper (utopian communities). At the same time, it will help us to find a useful definition of the vague and ambiguous term “utopia” and, more specifically, “utopian communities”. Subsequently, we will also have a brief look at the history of those communal experiments. After these prefatory remarks, I will introduce Rosabeth Moss Kanter’s concept of utopian commitment as a conceptual framework for the exploration of the longevity of utopian communities. Kanter’s functional concept is one of the few analytical models in this field. However, its functional approach is not unproblematic. Therefore a brief evaluation of its strengths and weaknesses seems necessary. Finally, I will use Kanter’s concept to analyse the developments of a failed utopian community (the Finnish colony of Sointula), which contrasts with a more successful community (the Shaker sect) and, thus, serves to test the concept’s validity.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction and Research Question
2 Exploring the field of subject
2.1 Defining “Utopia”
2.2 From Utopia to Communitarianism
2.3 Communitarianism – A Recurrent Social Phenomenon?
3 Demise or Survival? Introducing the theoretical framework
3.1 Community and Commitment
3.2 Problems and Limitations – Implications of Structural Functionalism?
4 Applying the Theory - Commitment-Building in a Canadian commune
4.1 Sointula – A brief history
4.2 Processes of community-building in Sointula
5 Conclusion
Research Objectives and Key Topics
This paper examines the factors contributing to the demise or survival of utopian communities. By utilizing Rosabeth Moss Kanter’s concept of commitment, the research investigates whether specific commitment-building processes are essential for communal longevity, using the Finnish colony of Sointula as a primary case study.
- Theoretical definition and historical development of utopian communities
- Analysis of Rosabeth Moss Kanter’s framework of utopian commitment
- Evaluation of the Structural Functionalist approach in community studies
- Empirical analysis of commitment-building processes in the Sointula commune
- Comparative assessment of communal survival factors
Excerpt from the Book
4.2 Processes of community-building in Sointula
Sacrifice. Successful communities, according to Kanter, usually show a high degree of sacrifice often characterized by various forms of abstinence and austerity. The Shakers, for example, forbade alcohol, personal adornment (including jewelry, attractive clothing, and personal luxuries), instrumental music, certain books and pictures. Most importantly, they prohibited any sexual contact between their members (Kanter, pp. 77-78). Sointula did not have such a long list of taboos. Only alcohol was not allowed on the island (probably as a reaction to the alcoholism common among the miners of Nanaimo). However, as later excavations of piles of liquor bottles dating from the turn of the century have shown, even this prohibition was not very strictly obeyed (Brown, p. 32).
Kurikka’s and Makela’s socialist ideology did not include an ideal of austerity. Quite the contrary, their aim was a more prosperous life for the people than the fierce conditions of capitalism. The hardship of the first years was only seen as a transitory state to a final prosperity (see, for example, Wild, p. 51). It was not voluntarily and permanently chosen as in the case of the Shakers. However, another of Kanter’s indicators for sacrificial community-building can be found in Sointula: communal house-building, community-building in a literal sense. Like many successful communes, the people of Sointula had to build their community site from scratch, which usually provides a feeling of “shared struggle” (Kanter, p. 79).
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction and Research Question: This chapter outlines the motivation for the study, focusing on the pervasive belief that utopian communities are destined to fail, and introduces the central research question regarding the causes of their demise or survival.
2 Exploring the field of subject: This section defines the concepts of "utopia" and "communitarianism" and provides a historical overview of various communitarian movements throughout history.
3 Demise or Survival? Introducing the theoretical framework: This chapter introduces Rosabeth Moss Kanter’s analytical model of commitment and critically evaluates its theoretical roots in Structural Functionalism.
4 Applying the Theory - Commitment-Building in a Canadian commune: This section serves as an empirical case study, applying Kanter’s commitment-building processes to the specific historical example of the Sointula colony.
5 Conclusion: The final chapter synthesizes the research findings, concluding that while commitment is a significant factor, economic and adaptive considerations are equally vital to the survival of utopian communities.
Keywords
Utopian Communities, Communitarianism, Commitment, Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Sointula, Structural Functionalism, Social Change, Communal Survival, Sacrifice, Investment, Renunciation, Communion, Mortification, Transcendence, Historical Analysis
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this research paper?
The paper explores why some utopian communities flourish while others fail, specifically investigating the role of commitment-building processes in their longevity.
What are the main theoretical concepts used in the study?
The study primarily utilizes Rosabeth Moss Kanter’s framework of utopian commitment, alongside principles of Structural Functionalism to analyze communal social structures.
What is the research question addressed by the author?
The author asks whether there is a single, most important feature or process that leads to the demise or survival of former utopian communities.
Which scientific method is employed in the work?
The paper employs a comparative and analytical approach, using a specific case study (the Sointula commune) to test the validity of Kanter’s functionalist model.
What is covered in the main body of the paper?
The main body covers the historical development of communitarianism, the theoretical framework of utopian commitment, and a detailed empirical analysis of the Sointula colony’s commitment mechanisms.
Which keywords best characterize this research?
Key terms include Utopian Communities, Communitarianism, Commitment, Structural Functionalism, and Communal Survival.
How did the Sointula colony handle the "sacrifice" mechanism?
Unlike the Shakers, who practiced strict austerity, Sointula’s socialist ideology focused on prosperity, resulting in a lack of institutionalized sacrifice, which contributed to its instability.
Why does the author conclude that Kanter’s model is not sufficient on its own?
The author argues that Kanter’s model, being rooted in Structural Functionalism, is ahistorical and fails to account for external economic factors and environmental adaptation, which were critical to the failure of Sointula.
- Quote paper
- Jan Kercher (Author), 2004, The demise and survival of utopian communities. A question of commitment?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/26596
