Sociology 354:
Community Studies
Professor Brian Elliot
Research Paper:
The Demise and Survival of
Utopian Communities –
A Question of Commitment?
By Jan Kercher (International)
SN: 11672037
Index of contents
1 Introduction and Research Question ...................................................................................................... 2
2 Exploring the field of subject ................................................................................................................. 3
2.1 Defining “Utopia”........................................................................................................................3
2.2 From Utopia to Communitarianism ..............................................................................................5
2.3 Communitarianism – A Recurrent Social Phenomenon?...............................................................6
3 Demise or Survival? Introducing the theoretical framework ................................................................. 7
3.1 Community and Commitment ......................................................................................................8
3.2 Problems and Limitations – Implications of Structural Functionalism?.......................................12
4 Applying the Theory - Commitment-Building in a Canadian commune ............................................. 14
4.1 Sointula – A brief history ...........................................................................................................15
4.2 Processes of community-building in Sointula .............................................................................16
5 Conclusion............................................................................................................................................ 22
6 Appendix: Sample and Methodology................................................................................................... 25
7 Bibliography......................................................................................................................................... 29
1
1 Introduction and Research Question
“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.
2
2 Exploring the field of subject
2.1 Defining “Utopia”
When we use the word “utopia” or “utopian” in our daily lives, we usually try to criticize something as
impossible, impractical or infeasible. For most of us, the word bears a negative connotation. However,
at the same time utopian ideas or stories have great and almost irresistible appeal for many of us
(shown, for example, by either successful science-fiction novels or movies like “The Beach”). This
ambiguity seems strongly related to the origin of the term “utopia”. The title of Thomas More’s famous
book Utopia (More, 1989) was a pun: derived both from the Greek terms eutopia (good place) and
outopia (no place).
Unfortunately, this ambiguity related into the scientific use of utopia. Many scholars exploring the
various fields of utopian ideas and practices (e.g. literature, communal experiments, political theories)
did not seem to see a need for a common definition as a basis for their research. However, conceptual
clarity depends upon such a definition and prevents inflationary and confusing use of the term: “Many
of the problems which beset utopian scholars arise from the absence of a clear definition of utopia
which separates its specialist academic use from the meanings current in everyday language” (Levitas,
1990, p. 2). Furthermore, to be able to define the purpose of utopian communities, we first have to be
sure about the meaning of utopia.
As Levitas points out, the various existing definitions of utopia relate to three main aspects: content,
form and function (Levitas, 1990, pp. 4ff). Some of those definitions combine these aspects, others
focus on only one of them. A common way of defining utopia by content would be a focus on the
possibility (or impossibility) of a utopia. The problem with such definitions is obvious: it often seems
impossible to agree on a content that defines a utopia. While some authors think, for example, that the
impossibility of a utopian scenario is its most important aspect, others do not see this feature as clearly
indispensable.
3
Most of the definitions of utopia (especially by authors of the dominant liberal-human tradition),
however, are expressed in terms of form. Many authors, influenced by More’s Utopia (More, 1989) see
utopia as a literary genre “involving the fictional depiction of an alternative society” (Levitas, 1990, p.
5). Those kinds of definitions normally exclude a large number of phenomena frequently seen as utopias
and do not allow for a historical change in the form of utopias. For a historical comparison, therefore,
they do not seem very adequate.
Definitions by function, finally, are often associated with the Marxist tradition. With such a
definition, the problem of historically changing forms of utopia can be eliminated. Therefore, a much
broader range of phenomena can be encompassed. One frequent example for a defining function of
utopia is social change – either negative as preventing or positive as encouraging it. However, we can
immediately see that the same problem applies here as with the first two definitions: the question of
which function is the defining one.
As we can see, the three ways of defining utopia shown above differ considerably in the scope of the
included phenomena. A central question seems to be if a narrow or a broad definition of utopia is more
helpful. According to Levitas, a broad and analytical definition that avoids both normative and
descriptive elements should be given preference (Levitas, 1990, pp. 198ff). This assessment seems
rather comprehensive. Although such a definition cannot satisfyingly solve the important problem of the
boundaries of the field, it has the virtue of avoiding many other important problems already mentioned
above. Therefore, Levitas chooses the following definition: “Utopia is the expression of the desire for a
better way of being” (Levitas, 1990, p. 8). As one can see, such a definition allows for changes in form
and function and clarifies the common element of many rather different phenomena mentioned above.
Its content seems to be quite uncontroversial. Thus Levitas’ definition, at least in comparison to all other
existing definitions, seems to be highly useful and workable and is therefore given preference here.
4
2.2 From Utopia to Communitarianism
By using Levitas’ definition of utopia, the common purpose defining all utopian communities is also
made clear. However, a definition only by this purpose would be very broad (ranging from short-lived
action groups to durable religious sects). In the literature about utopianism1, long-term communal
experiments are often referred to as “communitarianism”, described by Goodwin and Taylor as “the
desire to establish a closely knit, self-contained, family-like social unit based in a particular locality or
territorial region” (Goodwin/Taylor, 1982, p. 181). This desire is created by the longing for a better way
of life, and the realization that such a way of life is not possible within the constraints of mainstreamsociety. Therefore, communitarianism is a strategy for social change that differs fundamentally from
revolution (Zablocki, 1980, p. 24). While revolution tries to change
society as a whole,
communitarianism separates from society and tries to achieve its goals without regard for the rest of
society.
Experiments of communitarianism are the focus of this paper and will further be meant when
referring to “utopian communities” or “communes”. Despite the common aspects mentioned above,
there is still a great variety within these kind of communities (ranging, for example, from highly
religious to totally secular groups). To avoid ambiguity I will therefore use Kanter’s description of
utopian communities (Kanter, 1972, pp. 2-3) to make the definition complete. From this description,
five key features can be distilled:
•
Voluntary: Conformity within the community is based on commitment – the individual’s own desire
to obey its rules – rather than on force or coercion.
•
Self-determined: Members are controlled by their own laws, the entire membership or by the
individuals they respect within the community rather than by outside laws, agents or political forces.
•
Physical and social boundaries: The community is identifiable as an entity, for it has a physical
location and a way of distinguishing between members and non-members.
5
•
Value-based: The community intentionally implements a set of values or ideals (including harmony,
brotherhood, mutual support, and value expression), and its primary end is an existence that matches
these values.
•
Self-centred: The community operates to serve first and foremost its own members; relations among
members of the community are more important than are relations to the outside world.
Both examples for utopian communities that we will look at in the end of this paper fully incorporate all
of these five criteria.
2.3 Communitarianism – A Recurrent Social Phenomenon?
To be able to allocate the phenomena discussed later in this paper historically, we must now look at
most important steps in the development of communitarianism. Zablocki (1980, pp. 29-40) and
Poldervaart (2001, pp. 12-14) distinguish various historical periods of increased communitarian
movements. We will focus on the six major ones here. Zablocki places the first one around the
beginning of the first century, characterized by withdrawal sectarians of Roman Palestine (Jews and
Essenes), which did not want to conform to Hellenism as well as Christian communities that favoured
solidarity, equality (between rich and poor, men and women), and the sharing of all good communally.
The next major period did not occur until the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Then, heretical sects like
the Brotherhood of the Free Spirit attacked the hypocrisy and debauche of the clergy and sought to
realise the utopia of the first Christian communities again. The third communitarian period during the
seventeenth and eighteenth century was characterized by geographical transition. North America
became the new centre for communitarian experiments. The earliest communes in America were
tentative and short-lived religious experiments of Protestant refugees from Europe. But by the
eighteenth century, the communitarian tradition had taken root: the Amish originated in 1727, the
Moravians in 1741, and the Shakers in 1774. However, there were no secular communitarian ideologies
1
In accordance with Levitas’ definition, this phenomenon can be described as “the desire for another way of living
6
at this time. The fourth communitarian period in the early and mid nineteenth century, the Utopian
Socialist Period, meant a shift in the utopian tradition (Poldervaart, 2001, p. 13). For the first time
utopian theories and communities coincided. Utopians such as Fourier in France and Owen in England
(who triggered the so-called Owenite and Fourierist movements) rejected the static design of former
utopians and no longer strived for equality, but for the possibility for everyone to express their unique
qualities. This was the first great period of secular communitarianism. The few long-lived American
communes beside the Shakers (New Harmony, Brook Farm, the North American Phalanx, Oneida) were
all founded during this period. Socialism also dominated the next communitarian period around the
beginning of the twentieth century. Many self-described socialist groups advanced a range of views that
strongly resembled those of the first socialists. For the first time, communitarianism became a truly
nationwide (and partly urban) social movement in America. The sixth and last communitarian period in
the 1960s and 70s was characterized by the back-to-the-land movement and the co-operative
communities of the Hippie era. This period also marked the second shift of utopian tradition
(Poldervaart, 2001, p. 14): the commune was seen as just one of many alternatives and no longer as an
example for the whole world.
After these prefatory but nevertheless important remarks in mind, we can now move on to the next
step of our analysis: the theoretical framework for the final empirical examination.
3 Demise or Survival? Introducing the theoretical framework
Studying the literature on utopian communities, one can find numerous problems that seem to be
connected to the failure of former communes. To name only the most important ones: the distribution of
work; the design of decision-making processes; the level of self-sufficiency and the related level of
exchange with the outside world; gender relations; economic conditions and the “scarcity gap”; or
simply interpersonal difficulties. But what can a community do to solve these problems successfully?
together, expressed in theories, fiction or experiments” (Poldervaart, 2001, p. 11).
7
Many writers stress the importance of aspects like leadership, ideology, or solidarity for communal
survival. So far, however, few have studied these problems and possible solutions in an analytical,
comparative, and comprehensive way. Unfortunately, most of the literature stays more or less
descriptive.
Furthermore, there is an even more fundamental problem. When can a commune be called
successful? How can the success of utopian communities be objectively measured? The self-evident
solution, i.e. to analyse the degree to which the better way of being has been achieved, seems
problematic. Many of the sometimes rather broad goals of communes seem to be difficult to
operationalise. More importantly, how does one deal with a change of goals in the community? Is this a
sign for a failure to attain the original goals or is it a successful adaption to reality? However, the
fulfilment of its goals is not the only aspect of a community’s success. Durability also plays a vital role.
Fortunately, this indicator can be measured relatively easy and objectively, given some defined vital
aspects that clearly indicate the survival or expiration of a commune.
3.1 Community and Commitment
One of the few models to examine the success of utopian communities in an analytical and comparative
way was developed by Rosabeth Moss Kanter, who based her findings on a comparative study of thirty
nineteenth-century utopian communities (Kanter, 1972). Here, communal success is solely measured by
“length of time in existence” (ibid., p. 245). In order to be considered successful, a system has to exist as
a utopian community for at least twenty-five years, the sociological definition of a generation2. Only
nine of the communes included in Kanter’s study could be classified as successful according to this
standard.
What leads to success then? For Kanter (ibid., pp. 63-64) the prior reason for the success of a
commune is commitment. Commitment, in sociological terms, means the attachment of the self to the
8
requirements of social relations. “When a person is committed, what he wants to do (through internal
feeling) is the same as what he has to do (according to external demands)” (Kanter, p. 66). Kanter3 then
distinguishes three aspects of a social system that involve the commitment of its members: retention of
members, i.e. the willingness of people to stay in the community, support it and carry out roles and
duties; group cohesiveness, i.e. the ability of people to develop a collective identity and mutual
attraction as well as the strength to withstand external threats; social control, i.e. the ability to govern
the community through the command of obedience and respect as well as the conformity of all members
to the shared values.
To identify the kinds of individual commitment that support those three kinds of communal
commitment, Kanter refers to social action theory: “a person orients himself to a social system
instrumentally, affectively, and morally” (ibid., p. 68). Instrumental commitment emerges merely from a
rational calculation of rewards and costs involved in the participation in the community; it reinforces the
retention of the members. Affective commitment refers to the emotional relations and links between the
members of the system; it reinforces group cohesiveness. Moral commitment, finally, arises from the
acceptance of the communal norms and beliefs; it reinforces social control. Those kinds of individual
commitment are not only a feature of communes but of almost any kind of community. However, while
other kinds of communities normally focus on one or two of those aspects4, the peculiarity of utopian
communities, according to Kanter (ibid., p. 68), lies in the fact that all three aspects are equally
important, causally connected, and mutually reinforcing. Consequently, “[g]roups with all three kinds of
commitment […] should be more successful in their maintenance than those without it” (ibid., p. 69).
To promote the commitment of its members, a commune usually relies on two broad means:
detaching the members from other, unwanted options (that is, mainly, the outside world), and attaching
2
The vital indicator here is self-determination, i.e. the central control of all relevant relations among members by a
single organization.
3
The rest of the section refers to Kanter, pp. 65-74.
4
„A business organization may concentrate on solving problems of continuance rather than cohesion […]; a religious
organization may stress control” (Kanter, pp. 67-68).
9
them to the commune. “A person becomes increasingly committed both as more of his own internal
satisfaction becomes dependent on the group, and as his chance to make other choices or pursue other
options decline” (Kanter, p. 70). Based on the findings in her study, Kanter then identifies six
commitment-building processes that can fulfil these two functions. Every kind of individual
commitment is related to or, more precisely, promoted by two of these processes, a detaching and an
attaching one. Successful utopian communities in Kanter’s study usually showed examples for most of
those six processes. (For a better understanding of Kanter’s complex conception, the dependencies of
this model are visualized in Chart 1.)
Processes of
detaching
Processes of
attaching
Individual
commitment
Group
commitment
sacrifice
+
investment
leads to
instrumental
commitment
reinforces
retention of
members
renunciation
+
communion
leads to
affective
commitment
reinforces
group
cohesiveness
mortification
+
transcendence
leads to
moral
commitment
reinforces
social
control
UTOPIAN
COMMITMENT
Chart 1: Model of utopian commitment (Goodwin/Taylor, 1982, p. 191)
First, instrumental commitment depends on sacrifice (detaching) and investment (attaching).
Sacrifice is often embodied in all kinds of austerity and abstinence, for example from alcohol, tobacco,
or sexual pleasure. It involves the giving up of something considered valuable or pleasurable which, in
turn, makes the membership more costly, valuable and binding. It also creates a sense of “shared
struggle” (ibid., p. 73). Investment, on the other, hand, “provides the individual with a stake in the fate
of the community” (Kanter, p. 80). Examples would be the requirements to pay a non-refundable
admission fee, to sign over one’s property when entering the community, or to do useful work for the
commune.
10
Second, affective commitment is promoted by renunciation (detaching) and communion (attaching).
Renunciation for a member normally means giving up his personal relations to the outside world,
supported often by geographical isolation or prohibitions on emigration. It can also mean the
abandonment of traditional social institutions like marriage or family. Communion, in contrast, tries to
replace those lost social ties by new and exclusively communal attachments to create a strong sense of
belonging to the community. This process is usually represented by a vast list of arrangements, some of
which are shared housing and dining, communal work efforts, and regular meetings or rituals.
Finally, moral commitment arises from mortification (detaching) and transcendence (attaching).
Mortification can mainly be understood as the dissolution of the distinction between private and public
life. Individual behaviour becomes a group concern; success in living up to the norms and standards of
the community defines the individual’s identity. Institutions that exemplify such a process are systems
of confession, mutual criticism, punishment of deviance from community norms, or rewards for
exemplary behaviour. Transcendence is primarily “the experience of great power and meaning residing
in the community” (ibid., p. 113) which creates awe towards the symbols of this transcendent power,
normally the powerful leaders of the community. However, for a community to survive a change in
leadership, the awe of its members cannot only rely on a specific person. Successful communes
therefore usually have an ideology and a system of power and authority that creates transcendence
independent of specific personalities (e.g. elaborated philosophical ideology, routines of succession in
leadership, tests of faith and commitment).
As a conclusion, Kanter’s conception seems to resemble many features of an approach in the
tradition of Structural Functionalism: the community is interpreted as a system with several sub-systems
(e.g. the commitment-building processes) and functions (e.g. functions of detaching and attaching). The
next section will therefore deal with the question of why Kanter’s model can really be seen as a
structural-functionalist approach and what are the possible implications of such a conclusion.
11
3.2 Problems and Limitations – Implications of Structural Functionalism?
First of all, to test if Kanter’s approach is a structural-functionalist one, I will give a brief overview of
the main features of classical Structural Functionalism tracing back to Talcott Parsons5. Parsons’s
concept focuses on the relationships between such things as shared norms and values and the creation of
social order. It takes the view that a society consists of sub-systems (e.g. police, hospitals, schools,
farms), each of which has its own function. The heart of Parsons’s theory is built on the four functional
imperatives that a stable society has to fulfil, also known as the AGIL system:
1. The adaptive function (A), whereby a system adapts to its environment.
2. The goal-attainment function (G), i.e., how a system defines and achieves its goals.
3. The integrative function (I), or the regulation of the components of the system.
4. Latency (L), or pattern maintenance function, i.e., how motivation and the dimensions of culture
that create and sustain motivation are stimulated.
As already mentioned, Parsons was especially interested in the creation of social order and the role of
social norms and values. For example, he saw socialization as a process whereby society instils within
individuals an outlook in which it is possible for them to pursue their own self-interest while still
serving the interests of the system as a whole. These assumptions led him to focus primarily on order,
but to overlook, for the most part, the issue of change.
As we can clearly see now, a lot of Parsons’s thinking can be found in Kanter’s conception.
(Kanter’s concept of commitment, by and large, seems to resemble an operationalisation of Parsons’s
integrative and latency function.) With this thinking come some of the typical weaknesses of this
approach6. As already indicated, one of the main problems of Structural Functionalism is its disability to
deal with change or conflict. The same applies to Kanter’s conception: successful communes are those
which maintain social order by preventing social change and conflict successfully. We can find no
factor or process that uses change or conflict in a positive sense. Another common criticism therefore
5
This overview is based on Parsons, p. 30-79 and Ritzer, p. 237-249
12
also applies to Kanter’s model: it is rather conservative as it disfavours social change. Furthermore,
Structural Functionalism tends to be ahistorical, a tendency that also seems to be apparent in Kanter’s
concept. As Goodwin and Taylor assert: “the specific question of whether communitarianism must have
an agrarian basis if it is to succeed, or whether it is compatible with an industrialized society is not given
a great deal of attention” (Goodwin/Taylor, p. 194). However, some other problems of Structural
Functionalism, such as the accusation that it is ambiguous, do not seem to represent legitimate criticisms
of Kanter’s concept; partly because of the special case that communes represent, and partly because of
Kanter’s precise methodology and the limited scope of her study.
Yet, Kanter’s conception bears some further problematic peculiarities. Although it is clearly
influenced by Parsons’s conception, Kanter entirely ignores his first functional imperative adaption (to
the environment) and equals goal-attainment with survival, a view that strikingly limits the possible
implications of her study. Kanter’s focus is almost completely on the internal and relational processes of
a community. The economic dimension, for example, plays no apparent role (a fact that is also
represented in the criticism by Goodwin and Taylor already discussed above). Furthermore, Kanter’s
methodology renders a conditional interpretation of her findings impossible: as successful and
unsuccessful communities are distinguished before their commitment-building processes are analysed
(by length of existence), the frequencies of their features seem to indicate which measures lead to
demise and which to survival. Thus the question of whether special combination of certain
characteristics (and not just the combination of all features most frequent among successful
communities) is maybe the key to communal survival remains impossible to answer. Finally, Kanter’s
methodology is sometimes questionable. Some of the operationalisations of her community-building
processes do not seem convincing. A good example would be the operationalisation of “Austerity”
simply by the item “Built own buildings”. Furthermore, Kanter tries to be neutral to the ideological
background of the community: “It is [..] specific practices, available even to groups that resist a
6
The weaknesses of Structural Functionalism are taken from Ritzer, p. 253-259
13
deliberate focus, which build commitment, not the presence of a formally labelled religion” (Kanter, p.
137). However, parts of her concept seem to aim especially for religious groups and therefore do not
meet this neutrality. Examples would be many of the items used for her operationalisation of
mortification and transcendency (a term which in itself is associated strongly with religion)7.
Why, one can ask, do we still use Kanter’s concept for this analysis in spite of all these rather grave
limitations? Because “Kanter’s approach offers a highly incisive set of analytical tools, a way of looking
at all communitarian experiments in whatever period and location they occur in order to analyze their
potentiality for success or failure” (Goodwin/Taylor, p. 194). It is therefore, to my knowledge, still the
single most important sociological study, and the one which approaches the issues involved most
systematically and in the most useful comparative perspective.
4 Applying the Theory - Commitment-Building in a Canadian commune
We turn now to the analysis of an actual commune by applying Kanter’s conception. As our sample, we
chose the Finnish colony of Sointula in British Columbia, one of the best-known Canadian communes
of the 20th century. The colony is interesting especially for two main reasons: First, it is a clear example
of a failed community in Kanter’s terms (see section 2.3). As a commune it ceased to exist after only
four years. If Kanter’s conception is valid, we should therefore be able to find a lack of commitmentbuilding processes. Second, it was not a religious community. Commitment-building can therefore not
rely on a common religious ideology and related behavioural patterns which makes other ways of
commitment-building even more important. Ideally, a comparison with a highly successful commune
could most likely clarify and illustrate what Sointula was missing. Unfortunately, an exhaustive
comparative analysis is not possible in this paper, due to a lack of space. Nevertheless, I will contrast
7
The issue of the different performances of religious and secular communes is indeed a very interesting one. However,
due to the scope of this paper and the addressed bias of Kanter’s approach, this issue cannot be analysed in any
appropriate depth here.
14
my findings about Sointula with Kanter’s findings about the Shaker community, the most successful
example of her study, whenever it seems appropriate for a better understanding.
Now, we first turn to a brief historical overview about Sointula to provide a background for the
more detailed analysis of the specific commitment-building of this commune in the next section.
4.1 Sointula – A brief history8
The history of Sointula begins at the end of the 19th century as the desire of several desperate Finnish
miners in Nanaimo, British Columbia for a self sustaining place of their own. Like many other late
immigrants, the Finns had been forced to take poorly paid labouring jobs as the best homestead land had
already been staked out by the time they arrived. However, unlike other immigrant groups, they were
not numerous enough to try to settle in large co-operative groups. Still, their linguistic isolation and the
increasing dissatisfaction about their working conditions stimulated a certain solidarity. A group of them
became committed to the idea of establishing an independent socialist community.
The group contacted Matti Kurikka, a well-known Finnish political philosopher and newspaperman,
to provide leadership. Kurikka had already (unsuccessfully) tried to found a model socialist society in
Australia. He arrived in Nanaimo in 1900. Kurikka and the group of minders founded the Kalevan
Kansa Colonization Company (K.K.C.C.) and negotiated with the British Columbia government for
land. Kurikka’s friend, Austin Makela, arrived from Finland to help in the effort. In 1901, formal
arrangements were completed, and the Kalevan Kansa was ready to take possession of Malcolm Island –
located 300 kilometres northwest of Vancouver and therefore far removed from the distractions and
conventions of civilization. The first work party arrived in December, 1901, and began to clear the land
for the planned farming.
In June, 1902, the growing commune was joined by a large group of families and individuals to
celebrate the summer solstice. During those meetings, the name “Sointula” was formally chosen as the
15
name of this new place - a word than can be translated as “Place of Harmony”. (Meanwhile, 127 people
were living on Malcolm island.) The community continued to grow. Many of the newcomers were
attracted by Kurikka’s ideas: communal ownership, decision making by consensus, equal rights for
women. By 1903, they had succeeded in completing a large communal building housing several families
and providing for a communal meeting hall. Despite these positive developments, the commune already
had serious economic problems: agricultural process was painfully slow, most provisions had to be
imported, logging was the only profitable industry. The colony’s indebtedness mounted rapidly, soon
exceeding $60,000.
In January, 1903, tragedy struck. The communal hall burned, killing eleven people and destroying
most of the community’s supplies and records. Financial debt grew ominously. Many people left
disillusioned. About a year later, Kurikka, in a poorly considered move, bid on a bridge project in
Vancouver. The bid was ridiculously low, and was accepted. Most of the men of the commune spent
weeks without pay completing the contract. By late 1904, the relationship between Kurikka and much of
the colony deteriorated, and Matti Kurikka left with about half of the colony. He was never to return.
The remaining pioneers, now with the full debt, carried on under the leadership of Austin Makela; but
the debt was an impossible burden. The Kalevan Kansa Colonization Company declared bankruptcy in
1905. Sointula, as a utopian community, ceased to exist9.
4.2 Processes of community-building in Sointula10
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,
8
The following section is based on data from Anderson, pp. 1-13, Brown, pp. 29-34, Fish, pp. 34-40, Kalervo, pp. 2029, Scott, pp. 96-111, Wild, pp. 50-108, Wilson, pp. 54-65
9
Many people continued to live in Sointula, however. For the later history, see the sources listed above.
10
The following section is based on data from Anderson, pp. 1-13, Fish, pp. 34-40, Kalervo, pp. 20-29, Scott, pp. 96111, Wild, pp. 50-108, Wilson, pp. 54-65; see Appendix for a detailed listing of all community-building mechanisms of
Kanter’s methodology together with an index of their occurrence or non-occurrence in Sointula.
16
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).
Investment. Sointula’s investment processes are mostly ambiguous. In the beginning, for example,
the requirements for a membership in the commune’s company (the K.K.C.C.) envisioned the purchase
of $200 share in the company11. However, as it became clear that many applicants could not meet this
requirement, members were also allowed to make a down payment of only $50 and guarantee to pay for
shares with their labour. Later, even the $50 payment was dropped because of a great demand for
workers (Kalervo, p. 26). Although Kurikka’s socialist visions contained communal ownership, private
property seems to have been permitted to a considerable extent in Sointula12. Even though property or
even money was given to the company additionally to membership fees, it was often only loaned (Wild,
p. 88). This, again, endangered the operating capital of the colony (in case of leaving members). Later,
the board of governors of the community tried to introduce an agreement to clarify the communal
ownership but some members refused to sign (Wild, p. 88-89). The example of the Shakers shows a
11
Members received a five percent dividend on their stock in the company at the end of the year (Wild, p. 55).
17
stricter policy: to become a full “senior” member, one had to hand over all his possessions (Oved, pp.
429)13.
Although there were no non-resident members in the Sointula community (another indicator for
investment), Kurrika and Makela themselves lived apart from the community for long periods14. Kurrika
went on extensive speaking tours to attract new members, and Makela had to live in Nanaimo to edit the
Finnish newspaper “Aika” (which was distributed in the commune and also internationally to spread
Makela’s and Kurikka’s ideology) until a press and post office were set up on the island in 1903.
Renunciation. In spite of the insulation provided by the geographical isolation and the foreign
language, many factors hindered a clear renunciation. Sointula never gained complete self-sufficiency.
After it became clear that farming had no real future on the island, logging turned to be the main
industry of the colony (Kalervo, pp. 22-23). The artisans on the island often had no raw material to
produce the necessary supply for the islanders (Kalervo, p. 24). After the fire, the only doctor left the
island (Wild, p. 80). Thus, there was a constant necessary exchange with the outside world. There was
no ideological condemnation of “the others” as the colony often depended on them15. There were no
rules for interaction with visitors (which were frequent on the island16). Furthermore, the unfavourable
legal conditions of the settlement agreement instituted a permanent contact with and a permanent
influence by the provincial government. The land minister’s acceptance for all projects was necessary,
and a yearly report of the activities of the colony had to be made to him. Moreover, children were to be
taught in English (Anderson, p. 4).
In contrast to that, the Shakers instituted strict rules for contact with outsiders and even for the
conduct of visitors. An almost total separation of men and women also renounced marriage as a social
institution. No such extreme renunciation was known on Sointula. Although Kurikka launched a
12
However, the sources are inconsistent here with one another. See, for example, Fish, p. 35 and Kalervo, p. 27.
However, non-resident members were sometimes allowed during their time of transition into the commune (Oved, pp.
385-386).
14
see Anderson, pp. 4+6, Scott, p. 105
15
After the fire in the communal hall, for example, two nurses and a large quantity of donated clothing were sent from
Vancouver, triggered by an article in a newspaper (Anderson, p. 9).
13
18
campaign against traditional (churchly) marriage in some Aika articles from 1904 on, and encouraged
“free love” (meaning simply long-term sexual relationships without being married), this was never put
into practice as the majority of the islanders was opposed to the idea (Wild, p. 91-94). At this time, the
first attempt to alter social institutions had already been a failure: the children’s home, which was set up
to provide a superior environment and education for children and to free women for the colony’s work
force. In Kurikka’s ideal conception, mothers should have left their children there for day and night.
However, this was not compulsory and most of the women decided to keep their children in the family’s
home (Anderson, p. 10).
Communion. Communal sharing was one of the ideals of Sointula. The colony’s company was a
co-operative organization. Therefore, land, buildings, provisions and most of the company’s profits
were owned communally. Everyone earned one dollar per working day and there were no charges for
community services (Scott, p. 103). Communal work efforts and communal dining were permanent
institutions (Scott, p. 102). The common ethnic and linguistic background further produced feelings of
belonging together. Weekends in Sointula were full of community celebrations, such as collective music
making, dancing, plays, debates and lectures or readings by Matti Kurikka (Wild, p. 59). There were
also weekly meetings, open to all members, where the current issues of the community were debated
(Fish, p. 36; Michelson, Track 1, p. 5-6). The sauna replaced the church as the community’s gathering
place (Brown, p. 31). Another powerful tool of communion and the cultural base for the colony was the
newspaper “Aika”. The writing was not only intended to attract new members to the commune but also
“to create a feeling of unity and fellowship” (Wild, p. 84) within the commune.
However, communion did not go as far as in the case of the Shakers. The Shaker rituals and
ceremonies served unparalleled expressive and community-building functions (Kanter, p. 101). The
Shakers lived in communal dwellings and had a highly sophisticated system of communal work which
included job rotation. This “can be extremely effective as a communion mechanism, for it increases the
16
„About 2,000 people are thought to have visited the colony over a four-year-period“ (Brown, p. 31)
19
area of the individual’s responsibility to the group” (ibid., p. 96). This strong spirit of communion was
further affirmed in many lyrics of Shaker songs (ibid., p. 93, 98).
Another striking contrast to the Shakers is the fact that there was no common religious background
in Sointula: Kurikka was strongly opposed to a government church. “They could have religion but no
one would be forcing any particular religion, and they could believe as they wished” (Fish, p. 35). The
economic and educational status also varied heavily (Brown, p. 31), one of the consequences of the very
open membership recruitment process. Probably too late, a trial period was instituted for prospective
members to enforce homogeneity and commitment (Kalervo, p. 26). Finally, as already mentioned, the
concept of common property was not enforced strictly and most members had their own private
dwellings.
Mortification. Sointula, different from many successful communes in Kanter’s study, did not have
any systems of confession, sanctions or spiritual differentiation. Only once, two members were banned
from the island17 (Kalervo, p. 24). Other punishments of deviant behaviour are not known. Kurikka’s
ideology relied upon inherent human goodness, which aligned him with certain strands of anarchism18
(Brown, p. 31). Only two processes can be seen as having a form of mortification function: first, a form
of mutual surveillance and mutual criticism, expressed mainly in the general meetings and discussions19;
second, a certain degree of deindividuation (communal dining hall, same meals for all, same pay for all),
also mentioned by Kanter as typical for successful communities.
Shaker communities, in contrast to that, enforced much stricter forms of deindividuation like
uniforms and communal dwellings. They also knew various forms of surveillance and sanctions. A
Shaker transgressor was required to report his error to his elder, and any witness was likewise dutybound to report. Some Shaker villages even had towers from which elders could observe the activities of
17
This, however, was not part of a standardized sanction but a consequence of a personal and very controversial
demand by Matti Kurikka, leading to a first crack in Kurikka’s and Makela’s friendship (Wild, pp. 76-77).
18
In the constitution of the company nothing is said of religion, marriage or social relation other than economic, a
fundamental difference to other socialist communities (Kalervo, p. 21).
19
Unfortunately, this mutual surveillance and criticism mechanism later evolved into a community-threatening
slandering among dissatisfied members who accused each other of eating too much or working too little (Wild, p. 94)
20
members. A ritual sanction was the so-called “warring gift”: a number of Shakers would approach the
deviant, point at him, and shout “Woe! Woe!”. Ritual differentiation was instituted by a division of the
community into three classes, with special privileges to the senior class (Kanter, p. 107-111).
Transcendence. Similarly to the mortification processes were the weak developments of the
transcendence mechanisms in Sointula. The most important feature Kanter mentions, institutionalised
awe, was practically absent. Though Kurikka tried to introduce a certain ideology, these values never
became an ultimate justification for decisions. On the one hand, his ideology was far from being a
complete, elaborate philosophical system. It was a constantly evolving and often very controversial and
impractical mix of socialist and Christian (but anti-clerical) ideals (Brown, pp. 30-31). Thus, Kurikka’s
“aura” increasingly lost its power. Maybe even more problematic was the dual leadership of Kurikka
and Makela who held strikingly different views sometimes, often leaving the rest of the colony with the
decision of who was right. Kurikka, for example felt that some sort of spiritual order was necessary and
favoured theosophy with its emphasis on love, truth, freedom and harmony with nature (Wild, p. 59).
However, Makela (a staunch Marxist) rejected theosophy (ibid., p. 59-60, 103). Another example was
the controversy about free love. Makela fervently opposed Kurikka’s proposals which led to the breakup of their friendship and a tension that filtered into the community20; this became one of the reasons for
Kurikka’s final departure (ibid., p.93-94).
Power and authority were no source for awe either. The board of governors and the president were
elected by the whole community and therefore dependent on their support. Furthermore, decisions in the
general meetings depended on consensus, not on the president’s vote. The members also elected
committees for the management of the various industries (Kalervo, p. 27). Thus, “a close unity was kept
up between the working and governing members of the community” (ibid.). In addition to this, the
authority of Kurikka, as president of the colony, declined continually because of his repeated
miscalculations. Because of the discussed problems and the very democratic, partly even anarchic
21
structure of the community, guidance, ideological conversion and tradition, three other possible
transcendence mechanisms did not play any substantial role. That means that although Sointula had
perfectly solved the institutional problem of leadership succession (fatal for many other communes), its
democratic leaders did not create the necessary reverence.
Not surprisingly, the Shakers, as a highly religious commune, had various transcendence
mechanisms. Their religious ideology helped them to create institutionalised awe. “Many members
claimed special powers or revelations, such as spirit-writing and ‘speaking in tongues’” (Kanter, p. 115).
Shaker ideology also provided guidance through programs and philosophical guides for the behaviour of
members. This extended even to such minor activities as dressing (ibid., p. 121). Unlike many other
religious communes that depended on charismatic leader personalities, the Shakers avoided succession
crises through an elaborate authority hierarchy with dual leadership (male and female) at each level
(ibid., 118).
5 Conclusion
How can we evaluate our findings in regard to our research question? Is there a single, most important
feature or process that led to the demise or survival of former utopian communities? According to
Kanter, it is the ideational factor commitment. Undoubtedly, her conceptual framework helps to identify
many aspects of the failure of the Finnish colony at Sointula. Except for communion, the colony comes
off rather badly in all commitment-building processes. For the most part, the example of the Shakers
shows how a much more successful community-building can look like. This, however, is not the full
story. The Shakers are not a thriving commune movement anymore. Except for a few small
communities with mostly elderly members, the movement has ceased to exist. This could mean that
commitment, though surely one important factor, is not the single, most important factor for the survival
of a commune. Regarding the Shakers, even without a deeper analysis, at least one factor that Kanter’s
20
This even led to a lawsuit of one woman against the colony’s company who felt that her reputation had been
22
conception misses seems obvious: reproduction. Because of the strict celibacy rules, the Shakers had to
recruit their members from the outside world. However, the age of industrialization (together with its
individualist values) made the Shaker lifestyle (which was based mainly on agriculture and communal
values) less attractive and profitable, leading to economic problems and difficulties with the recruitment
process (Oved, pp. 59-60). This conclusion leads us back to the limitations of structural-functionalist
approaches discussed above. They are traditionally ahistorical. There is no place in Kanter’s theory for
the impact of external change. In addition to that, Kanter’s approach misses Parsons’s functional
imperative of adaption to the environment. This dimension, however, seems to have played a vital role
in both the histories of Sointula and the Shakers. Regarding all the facts about Sointula, it could well be
that, with a more practical approach to the conditions found on Malcolm island, the commune could
have survived much longer. This also involves economic aspects, another shortcoming of Kanter’s
approach. Maybe an already higher seed capital, freeing the community from constant emergency
planning, would have led to a longer survival21. Probably most importantly, the original decision about
the location of the colony falls out of Kanter’s analytical model. As Kalervo puts it: “It is one thing to
form a community in a fertile valley in Ohio where agriculture is advanced and where markets are near,
but, it is quite another, to try and make a living on a heavily timbered island in the wilds of British
Columbia far from the centres of civilization” (Kalervo, p. 29-30). Thus, although he acknowledges the
impact of certain internal aspects, Kalervo sees the greatest single factor in the failure of the Sointula
experiment as an economic one (ibid., p. 29-34). The lack of capital, skilled workmen and expert
management, the latter leading to the decision to settle on Malcolm island despite the island conditions,
the distance to Vancouver and the unfavourable clauses of the settlement agreement obviously played a
vital role in the fate of Sointula. Without an analytical framework which includes both ideational and
economic qualifications, as well as the ability of the commune to adapt those features, it is hard to tell
which factor played the most important role in the demise of the community. They certainly influenced
destroyed by Kurikka’s free love campaign and the image that had been created in the outside world (Wild, p. 94)
23
each other too. Among the ideational aspects, especially the lack of a stable, uniform and powerful
ideology (as shown in Sointula’s poor performance at the transcendence mechanisms) seems to have
been a major reason for the early failure. It is very likely that the commune would have survived longer
if the transcendence mechanisms had had such a stable basement. However, as some major economic
factors (the decision to move to Malcolm island and the conditions there) played their role prior to the
ideational and adaptive qualifications, I would tend to agree with Kalervo and conclude that economic
factors were the main reason for the failure of the Sointula commune.
Yet, this is not the answer to our research question. Quite the contrary: as our findings and
deliberations have shown, the answer to this question has to be no, there is not such a single, most
important factor that can be generalised for the longevity of all utopian communities. One always has to
compare the impact of ideational and economic factors and the ability to adapt them to the environment
from case to case. A framework for such a comprehensive analysis has yet to be developed.
21
see also Kalervo, p. 31
24
6 Appendix: Sample and Methodology22
Y = Yes, clearly existent; N = No, clearly not existent; A = Ambiguous, no clear statement possible; I =
not enough information
Sacrifice mechanisms
Sointula
Shakers
Abstinence
Oral abstinence
Celibacy
Other abstinence
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Austerity
Built own buildings
Y
Y
Physical participation
Non-resident members prohibited
Y
Y
Financial investment
Financial contribution for admission
Property signed over at admission
Group-assigned property received while member
Y
A
Y
N
Y
Y
Irreversibility of investment
No records of contribution
Defectors not reimbursed for property – official policy
Defectors not reimbursed for property – in practice
Defectors not reimbursed for labour – official policy
Defectors not reimbursed for labour – in practice
N
N
I
N
I
Y
I
I
I
I
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
I
I
I (but very
likely yes)
Y
I
I
A
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Investment mechanisms
Renunciation mechanisms
Insulation
Ecological separation
Institutional completeness (medical services provided)
Special term for outside
Outside conceived as evil and wicked
Uniform worn
Foreign language spoken
Slang, jargon, other special terms
Outside newspapers ignored
American patriotic holidays ignored
22
This appendix is based on date from Kanter, p. 75-125 and Oved, p. 39-68, 369-480
25
Cross-boundary control
Average member rarely leaving community
Rules for interaction with visitors
Y
N
Y
Y
Renunciation of couple
Free love or celibacy
Controls on free love, celibacy or sexual relations
N
N
Y
Y
Renunciation of family
Parent-child separation
Families not sharing a dwelling unit
N
N
A (celibacy)
A (no families)
Homogeneity
Common religious background
Similar economic and educational status
Common ethnic background
Prior acquaintance of members
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Communal sharing
Property signed-over at admission
Group assigned property received while member
Land owned by community
Buildings owned by community
Furniture, tools, equipment owned by community
Clothing and personal effects owned by community
Legal title in name of community (not individuals)
A
Y
Y
Y
A
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
A (often in
practice)
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Regularized group contact
Communal dwellings
Communal dining halls
Little opportunity or place for privacy
More than two-thirds of typical day spent with other members
Regular group meetings
Daily group meetings
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Ritual
Songs about community
Group singing
N
Y
Y
Y
Communion mechanisms
Communal labour
No compensation for labour
No charge for community services
No skills required for admission
Job rotation
Communal work efforts
Y
Y
Y
Y
26
Special community celebrations
Y
Y
A
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y (partly)
Sanctions
Public denouncement of deviants
Removal of a privilege of membership
Participation in a community function prohibited
Deviants punished within community more often than expelled
from it
N
N
N
I
Y
I
I
Y
Spiritual differentiation
Members distinguished on moral grounds
Formally structured deference to those of higher moral status
No skill or intelligence distinctions
Instructions in community doctrines
Learning of rules and dictates required
New members segregated from old
Formal probationary period with limited privileges for new
members
N
N
Y
I
N
N
A
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
A (no uniform
ideology)
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Persecution experience
Violence or economic discrimination
Mortification mechanisms
Confession and mutual criticism
Regular confession
Confession upon joining
Mutual criticism or group confession
Mutual surveillance
Surveillance by leaders
Deindividuation
Uniform worn
Communal dwellings
Communal dining halls
Same meals eaten by all
Transcendence mechanisms
Institutionalised awe (through ideology)
Ideology explained essential nature of humanity
Ideology a complete, elaborated philosophical system
Power invested in persons with special, magical characteristics
Demands legitimated by reference to a higher principle
Special, magical powers imputed to members
Possession of special powers as evidence of good standing
Ideology related community to figures of historical importance
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
27
Values formed ultimate justification for decisions
Institutionalised awe (through power and authority)
Authority hierarchy
Top leaders were founders or were named or groomed by
predecessors
No impeachment or recall privileges
Special leadership prerogatives
Special leadership immunities
Separate, special residence for leaders
Special forms of address for leaders
Irrational basis for decisions
Guidance
Fixed daily routine
Detailed specification of routine
Personal conduct rules (demeanour)
Ideological conversion
Commitment to ideology required
Recruits expected to take vows
Procedure for choosing members
Prospective members often rejected
Tests of faith for community children to receive adult
membership status
Tradition
Community derived from prior organization or organized group
Prior organization in existence at least ten years before
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
I
I
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
N
N
A
N
N
Y
I
I
I
I
N
N
N
N
28
7 Bibliography
Anderson, Aili (1958). History of Sointula. Sointula, Can.: Sointula Centennial Committee.
Brown, Justin (1995). All Possible Worlds: Utopian Experiments in British Columbia. Vancouver:
New Star Books.
Fish, Fish (1982). Dreams of freedom: Bella Coola, Cape Scott, Sointula. In Sound heritage, No. 36,
pp. 34-40.
Goodwin, Barbara/Taylor, Keith (1982). The Politics of Utopia: A Study in Theory and Practice.
London: Hutchinson.
Kalervo, Oberg (1928). Sointula: a communistic society in British Columbia. Vancouver: University of
British Columbia.
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss (1972). Commitment and Community: Communes and Utopias in Sociological
Perspective. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Levitas, Ruth (1990). The Concept of Utopia. New York: Philip Allan.
Michelson, Richard John (1972). Sointula, commune, 1901-1906: problems of communal life, life in
Sointula 1909-1915 (Transcript of sound recording). Vancouver: Oral History Project, Interview No. 64,
Track 1 (pp. 1-13), Track 2 (pp. 1-10).
More, Thomas (1989). Utopia. Cambridge [England]; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Parsons, Talcott (1961). Theories of Society: Foundations of Modern Sociological Theory, Vol. 1.
New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
Poldervaart, Saskia (2001). The concepts of utopianism, modernism and postmodernism, community
and sustainability. In: Saskia Poldervaart, Harrie Jansen, Beatrice Kesler (eds.), Contemporary Utopian
Struggles: Community between modernism and postmodernism (pp. 11-30). Amsterdam: Aksant.
Ritzer, George (1996). Sociological Theory (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Scott, Andrews (1997). The Promise of Paradise: Utopian communities in B.C.. North Vancouver,
B.C.: Whitecap Books.
Wild, Paula (1995): Sointula: Island Utopia. Madeira Park, Can.: Harbour Publishing.
Wilson, J. Donald (1973). Matti Kurrika: Finnish-Canadian intellectual. In BC Studies, No. 20, pp. 5065.
Yaácov, Oved (1988). Two hundred years of American communes. New Brunswick, N.J., U.S.A.:
Transaction Books.
Zablocki, Benjamin (1980). Alienation and charisma: A Study of Contemporary American Communes.
New York: Free Press.
29