People Like Me: Shared Belief, False Consensus, and the Experience of Community
Melissa Fletcher Pirkey
University of Notre Dame
Contemporary theory on community suggests that disagreement or conflict over foundational
beliefs and values greatly decreases the chance that a successful, sustainable community
experience will develop. My findings suggest, however, that feelings of community can develop
despite incongruous ideologies through the perception of shared beliefs and values. Using an
ethnographic case of a voluntary non-profit organization, I demonstrate how three types of
mechanisms operate jointly to maintain a community without shared beliefs: environmental
mechanisms related to the division of labor, relational mechanisms associated with selective
recruitment and homophily, and a cognitive mechanism that produce the feeling of consensus in
the absence of objectively shared beliefs combine to allow a powerful experience of community
to flourish in a context where we might expect, based on previous research, no community
experience at all. Implications for the study of community, sociology of organizations, and social
psychology are discussed.
Key words: community, false consensus, organizational ethnography, voluntary organization,
pooled interdependence
Acknowledgements: Special thanks to Omar Lizardo and Michaela DeSoucey for their
invaluable comments on earlier drafts. Thanks also go to the anonymous reviewers for their
thought provoking critiques. A prior version of this article was presented at the American
Sociological Association Annual Meeting in Denver in 2012
Please direct correspondence to: Melissa Fletcher Pirkey, University of Notre Dame, Department
of Sociology, 810 Flanner Hall, Notre Dame, IN 46556. Tel: (860) 268-5824, E-mail:
[email protected]
“…it’s like when, you know, you have a strong faith. You go to church because
you get to share that fellowship with somebody that thinks the same way as you
do, and when you’re working in the garden, many of them, think the same way…
That’s what community is all about. It’s the fellowship.”
Patty, Shareholder
***
I sat with Patty on a hard wooden bench, tucked away in a corner of the library, talking
about her experience as a shareholder of the State-Line Farm community supported agriculture
(CSA) organization. Like the other members I had interviewed, and those I had yet to meet, Patty
placed a heavy emphasis on her experience of community at the farm. It was for her, as it was for
many, one of the first things she brought up when I asked about the benefits of membership.
Members also valued the produce they received in exchange for their financial support and labor,
and the opportunity to learn new skills, but above all they valued the connection and feelings of
fellowship that, as they told me, came with being amongst others who shared their deeply held
beliefs surrounding the production and consumption of ethical food.
Later, as I spent time in the field, I saw the ways in which their experience of community
manifested; members held primarily caring rather than instrumental orientations to the group,
freely gave more of their time than required, and placed the needs or benefit of the group ahead
of their own. At the same time, however, it became clear that the members of State-Line Farm
did not agree on how food ought to be grown and consumed, and that these differences, were
significant enough to generate tensions capable of eroding members’ community experience,
2
shifting their orientation to the group from affective to instrumental or lead to exit from the
organization.
Still, most members reported experiencing the CSA as a community, and my observations
in the field aligned with their descriptions of community-oriented behavior. These observations
stood in contrast to extant theory and research arguing that, for groups such as State-Line Farm
where the boundaries or identity of the community are predicated on a specific belief or beliefs,
member’s adherence to those beliefs is essential to their experience of community (Kanter 1972;
Vaisey 2007; Stroope 2011). This raised an intriguing question: how were the members of StateLine Farm CSA able to maintain their experience as a community of like-minded people despite
their divergent views? The answer, I argue, lies in the processes and mechanisms that support
shareholders’ perception of shared belief.
SHARED BELIEF AND THE COMMUNITY EXPERIENCE
Community is associated with a sense of belonging and connection to something greater
than one’s self (Bellah 1985; Brint 2001; Vaisey 2007), caring orientations toward the
community and its members (Brint 2001; Etzioni 2001; Selznick 1992), and – ideally – the
formation of relationships that are “holistic, affective, and of value in themselves” (Rothschild
and Whitt 1986:55). The value society places on these affective connections is evident in
community’s status as a goal to be achieved (Rothschild and Whitt 1986; Keller 2003), as
something worthy of preservation (Brown-Saracino 2004), and a thing to mourn when lost
(Putnam 2000). For these reasons ‘community’ has been at the center of much research,
theorizing, and debate, resulting in myriad definitions and applications of the concept (Etzioni
2001; Hillery 1955; Keller 2003; Putnam 2000; Selznick 1992). For example, in addition to more
traditional applications focused on affective ties between individuals or individuals to groups,
3
‘community’ has also been reframed as a political construct (Collins 2010); used to describe the
‘c-form’ of organization which are marked by fluid and informal boundaries, heavy reliance on
voluntary labor, sharing of knowledge, and information-based output (Seidel and Stewart 2011);
conceived of as an institutional order that provides actors with a frame of reference for
sensemaking choices (Thornton, Ocasio, and Lounsbury 2012); and used to describe the
associations between bounded, interrelated organizations (Astley 1985; Aldrich and Ruef 2006).
As we develop new insights into what it means to experience community, and the ways in
which people achieve this experience, existing definitions and the assumptions that underpin
them are challenged – not to the point of invalidation, but rather in ways that expand our
understanding of a complex concept and support productive lines of research. This is perhaps
most evident in the divergence of the community literature into two core approaches; the first a
holistic or general orientation distinguished by the influence of Tönnies, the second rooted in
Durkheim’s disaggregated approach which seeks to “…extract more precise and narrowly
defined variables.” (Brint 2001:2). It can also be seen in the ways that communities built on a
foundation of shared interests, experiences, or goals (Fine 1987; Jindra 1994) challenge
definitions of community rooted in space and place, and in how the relatively recent
development of online communities challenges assumptions about the need for copresence
(Cummings, Kiesler, and Sproull 2002) and defined, enforced boundaries (O’Mahoney and
Lakhani 2011; Seidel and Stewart 2011).
That each of these can be called ‘community’ points to the utility of the disaggregated
approach for the study of the community experience, and the value in emphasizing the individual
variables that support feelings of community rather than specific contexts. Furthermore, they
draw attention to the need to acknowledge that within a general understanding of community as a
4
group of people bound by feelings of belonging, solidarity, and meaningful (primarily noninstrumental) ties exist subtypes of community, and these subtypes may display some or all of
these variables in different combinations and amounts1 (Brint 2001). This distinction is
particularly important for understanding the role of shared beliefs for the experience of
community.
Over time and across fields of research, shared beliefs have been placed at the center of
community. For some, common beliefs – broadly defined - are part of the general community
concept. This can be seen in the way that Tönnies (2001:78) suggests that the “fellow feeling”
holding communities together was associated with “reciprocal binding sentiment” or mutual
understanding. More recently, Etzioni (2001:223) notes that the term community is widely used
throughout the literature to indicate a “...commitment to a set of shared values, norms, and
meanings...”. In these instances ‘shared beliefs’ may arise out of interactions between
community members or exist as a byproduct of common interests or goals, representing the
general connectedness of community members and a mutual understanding of what the
community is without being essential to the community’s identity. At other times shared belief is
an proposed as an independent variable upon which the experience of a specific type of
community (one in which shared beliefs mark the boundaries of membership) depends. That is,
the primary defining characteristic of these communities are their mutual adherence to a
particular belief or set of beliefs. It is the identification with shared beliefs that determine, in
large part, who belongs within the community and who does not (Blee 2012). In this treatment,
shared beliefs are proposed to be essential to the experience of community. It is this position that
my findings challenge.
5
While the disaggregated approach promotes the emphasis of individual variables that
support feelings of community rather than specific contexts, some cases or contexts are so
powerful, encompassing, or memorable that it can be difficult to decouple them from the variable
of interest. Communes and collectives provide one such example. In her well known work on
commitment mechanisms, Kanter (1972:114) states simply that “[s]uccessful communities need
shared beliefs”. Vaisey (2007) expands on Kanter’s stance, through the position that shared
beliefs support community by allowing members to have the common understandings of events
and practices necessary for solidarity. But not all communities defined by their shared belief are
as all-encompassing as communes; religious groups and political or social movement based
organizations – arguably much more commonplace than communes – have also served as the
foundation for arguments that similarity of belief is a significant factor in members’ feelings of
commitment and solidarity. Blee, for example, discusses how some members of activist groups
talk about membership in “deeply personal ways” (Blee 2012: 69), describing affective
attachment to others in the group, or the group as a whole. For these activist groups,
“[m]embership is connectedness to a community of like-minded activists.” (Blee 2012:69,
emphasis mine)2. Similarly, Stroope (2011:583) finds that “...greater collective belief unity has a
direct contextual effect on individual-level feelings of belonging. Belonging in the group appears
to be more likely to be felt when reinforced by an ideologically bounded social context.”
That communes, collectives, congregations, and activist groups have all served as
evidence for the importance of shared beliefs to the community experience does not diffuse or
muddle the position. Rather, it provides additional support for the need to focus on the isolation
of variables. When the specifics of the context are set aside and the variables present within them
(e.g., demands on time, structure, level of interaction or time commitment, and shared belief) are
6
allowed to come to the fore, what emerges is a seemingly strong argument for the necessity of
shared beliefs. In light of my findings, however, I argue that it is incomplete, as it assumes that
beliefs of the community must be both shared and mutually recognized as such by members to
produce feelings of purpose, unity, and belonging or to orient the behavior of the group. I
propose that that these same results can be achieved through the members’ perception that shared
beliefs are held. Using data from two years of observational research at State-Line Farm, I argue
that the experience of community can be created and maintained despite a lack of shared and
mutually recognized, or intersubjective, beliefs.
Members of the CSA place heavy emphasis on the value of the group as a community of
like-minded prosumers1 (Ritzer and Jurgenson 2010) of ethical food. With their morally oriented
identity, the CSA members’ experience of community should be, according to present theories,
driven by intersubjectively shared beliefs. The findings show however that CSA members hold a
wide variety of incongruous food and agriculture related beliefs and values, and that these
differences can lead – infrequently - to tension and conflict. The key empirical puzzle that
emerges concerns how members of the State-Line Farm CSA maintain their experience of
community in the absence of objectively shared beliefs. I offer a mechanism-based explanation
that allows me to detail the “cogs and wheels” (Hedstrom and Ylikoski 2010) of the process
allowing a powerful experience of community to flourish in a context where we might expect,
based on previous research, no community experience at all. More specifically, following Tilly
(2001), I argue that the phenomenon of the experience of community in the absence of shared
beliefs is best understood as a specific linking or sequencing of mechanisms3. Environmental
mechanisms related to the division of labor and relational mechanisms associated with selective
recruitment and homophily combine to support a cognitive mechanism that contributes to the
7
feeling of consensus in the absence of objectively shared beliefs. The evidence indicates that the
breakdown of either the environmental or relational mechanisms decreases the likelihood that the
cognitive mechanism will function, reducing shareholders’ ability to maintain the experience of
community.
CASE SELECTION AND METHODS
As a case, State-Line Farm CSA is at once familiar and exceptional. Once few in number,
the population of CSA organizations in the United States has grown quickly. At the time of the
last census of agriculture 12,549 farms within the United States marketed products through some
form of CSA (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2009), and approximately 24 CSAs were located
within a 50 mile radius of State-Line Farm. The shareholders, too, are familiar in their similarity
to CSA shareholders in the United States. State-Line Farm’s CSA is exceptional, however, in
two ways. First, of the 24 CSAs operating within the area, only State-Line allows shareholders to
work at the farm. Second, and more importantly, State-Line is an exceptional case in that the
puzzle it presents draws attention to an instance where existing theory doesn’t work (Donmoyer
1990; Firestone 1993; Mitchell 1983; Small 2009).
This blend of exceptionality and familiarity makes the case useful for theoretical
exploration and generalization well beyond community supported agriculture, and organizations
more broadly. Indeed, it is not the type of the organization – or that it is an organization at allthat is of primary interest4. Rather, interest lies in the conditions presented by the case. StateLine Farm CSA provides a strong example of the community experience but lacks
intersubjectively shared beliefs, morals, or ideologies that previous accounts argue are necessary
for the success of such a community, presenting a puzzle waiting to be solved.
About State-Line Farm
8
State-Line Farm is perched just over the crest of a small hill between two commercial soy
growers in a Midwestern town of about 13,000 people. It is owned and operated by Ellen, who
lives on the property with her family. At the time of data collection the CSA program allowed for
approximately 45 full shares, with some full shares divided into half shares for smaller families.
In the tradition of community supported agriculture, shareholders share both the risks and
benefits of food production; members support the farm financially through a membership fee
paid up front, and in return receive a share of the harvest grown that season. While contemporary
CSAs do not require members to work as part of their shareholder status, some choose to either
require a work element, or make opportunities for volunteer labor available. Along with their
membership fee, State-Line Farm CSA members with a ‘full’ share must commit to one work
day per week, with the choice of working either on Saturday or Wednesday morning from 7am
to 10am. Those choosing a half share alternate work weeks with another half share member. At
the end of each shift the harvest for that day - regardless of its size - is divided equally amongst
those who worked. While Ellen occasional has one or two interns each season, there is no paid
staff. The overwhelming majority of labor is provided by Ellen and the shareholders.
Furthermore, shareholders are assigned to a specific crop. They are responsible for
learning about the crop, recommending a fertilization schedule, and controlling pests organically.
Communication between Wednesday workers and Saturday workers occurs through a journal
system; at the end of each shift shareholders record what was done and what is recommended for
the next work session. Those unable to attend their shift are responsible for finding a substitute.
They may recruit a friend or family member to work in their place, or they may contact
volunteers from a list distributed to each member at the start of the season. These volunteers do
9
not pay a membership fee and only receive a portion of the harvest should they cover a
member’s work shift.
In many ways, the State-Line Farm CSA is representative of community supported
agriculture programs across the country. The shareholders at the State-Line CSA are primarily
white, female, college educated, and middle class, making them demographically similar to other
CSA shareholders in the United States. (Lass et al. 2003a; Lass et al. 2003b) Also like other
CSAs, State-Line Farm employs organic methods, practices crop rotation, and other ecologically
friendly agricultural techniques. Finally, like many others who run CSA programs, farming was
not Ellen’s first career (Lass et al. 2003a; Lass et al. 2003b). Other factors, however, set the farm
apart. At eleven acres, State-Line Farm is larger than many CSA farms in the United States,
which average about three acres. Additionally, while it cannot be said that the working-share
membership format of the organization is unique, it is not as common as other organizational
structures which have developed since CSAs were first introduced to the United States in the
1980s (Brown and Miller 2008; Cooley and Lass 1998; Hinrichs 2000; Lass et al. 2003a; Lass et
al. 2003b; Schnell 2007). State-Line is also distinguished by the many programs and activities
that take place in addition to the CSA, which include a collaborative school-to-farm initiative;
numerous field trips each year; an annual hog roast fundraiser, and a summer farm camp. Finally,
State-Line Farm is a non-profit organization, covering operating costs through programming fees
and the occasional private donation.
Data Collection
I conducted participant observation over the complete 2009 and 2010 farming seasons,
beginning in late March and ending in late September. Time in the field each week ranged from
three to seven and one-half hours. Accounting for days when work shifts were cancelled due to
10
weather conditions, total hours of observation is estimated at 250. Shareholders were informed of
my status as a researcher, and most expressed excitement that the organization was of interest
and were comfortable and open in my presence. As a participant observer I worked as other
shareholders did, with one key difference; while shareholders were each assigned to a crop area
and were obligated to remain responsible for this area, I was able to move between different
sections of the farm to assist shareholders in different crop areas. This flexibility allowed me to
observe and talk with all of the shareholders over the course of the season, and enabled a more
complete understanding of the structure of the organization and the networks embedded within it.
Notes were taken either verbally using a digital recorder or written on a small note pad. These
brief field notes were then elaborated on after the work shift had ended. For this reason the
dialogue quoted should be viewed as accurate in meaning, but not reliable for conversation
analysis.
The participant observation data are augmented with data from two sets of interviews.
Prior to the start of my fieldwork I conducted interviews with seven members as a subset of a
larger project that included interviews with shareholders and operators from several CSAs. Of
the seven interviews, six are with shareholders and one was conducted with the farm operator.
Interviews with shareholders were held at an off-site location of their choosing and lasted forty
five minutes on average. The interview with the farm operator took place in the large industrial
kitchen at State-Line Farm and lasted just over one hour. Interviews were digitally recorded and
transcribed in full. I completed a second round of interviews at the conclusion of my observation
period, including twenty two shareholders and one interview with the farm operator. The
interviews ranged in length from forty five minutes to three hours and were conducted at
locations of the interviewee’s choosing. These interviews gave shareholders an opportunity to
11
express in more detail their beliefs about food, nutrition, and agriculture as well as how they
came to find and join the CSA in a way that was not always possible in the field due to time
constraints and work requirements. Quotes drawn from interviews are identified as such.
COMMUNITY AT STATE-LINE FARM CSA
A community cannot be a community if they don’t identify as such, but the subjective
experience of community alone provides little in the way of analytical leverage, as people may
feel they belong in many social contexts without those identifications resulting in collective or
community-oriented behavior (Calhoun 1980). Communities go beyond simply feeling or
experiencing we-ness, natural belonging, affect or personal concern to behave in a way that
achieves a collective goal and places the community at the center of the action. For this reason
Calhoun (1980) suggests that when searching for community that we look for group oriented
behavior that is not enforced through coercion, but grows instead out of bonds between members
of the community.
It is from these positions that I build my criteria for community. First, the experience of
community is essential. Members must express feelings of natural belonging, personal concern
for other community members, or ‘we-ness’. Related to these experiences of natural belonging or
affect is the ability of the community to identify itself as a community; through the expression of
a shared or collective identity members show that they are not simply an aggregate of people,
each with their own subjective experience of community but without an intersubjective
dimension. Finally, members of the community should act toward collective goals and collective
good. This action should not be motivated by contractual obligation or the threat of coercion, but
instead from feelings of responsibility and personal connection toward the community. While
these criteria may not satisfy all critics, they do generate a definition that is at once “weak,
12
inclusive, and relatively uncontroversial” (Selznick 1992:358) but strong enough to provide
analytical leverage.
Community as Experience
Shareholders describe their experience of the CSA as a form of community and discuss
how they value being surrounded by like minded others who care for, support, and need one
another. Cynthia, a long-time shareholder turned substitute, spoke with reverence as she
described her first experiences at the farm and what drew her there. “People help each other
when they have a lot to harvest or if there are too many weeds. And everything gets shared
equally,” she said as she worked. She stressed that everyone was working for the ‘common
good,’ and that while at a job you may work in teams toward a goal, the goal was often your own
income or making money for the company. But Cynthia felt that the shareholders at State-Line
were working towards something more than their own individual basket of food. Cynthia
believed that they were working to build a community.
Cynthia’s sentiments are echoed by other shareholders. Greg, a long time member, spoke
with me over coffee about how he came to join the CSA. He mentioned that he had hoped that
the organization would provide an opportunity to network but moments later, as he stressed the
importance of the community at State-Line, he paused. “...I had mentioned networking and I
don’t think that’s fair to apply that to the word community...” he said. Returning to the idea of
community, Greg asserted that “...it’s there and it’s rich and it’s a good thing.” Similarly, during
an interview that occurred at the start of her first season, Tara emphasizes her belief that the
shareholders at State-Line need one another- not just as helping hands to get the harvest in, but as
humans who need connections to others like themselves in a society where their beliefs are not
the norm. “It is just quite a camaraderie of people,” Tara insists. “...I think we feel that need to
13
hold onto each other in a sense. I don’t know, I think that is what I have seen. People are
becoming much closer to each other because we feel that we really need each other.” While not
all members explicitly use the word ‘community’ in describing their relationship to the farm and
other members, they make it clear that being a member is about more than potatoes and onions.
The shareholders believe that they are a group of like-minded people who have come together to
support each other in their effort to live according to their beliefs about food and agriculture, and
this belief facilitates the we-ness, personal connection, and natural belonging that is so important
to the community experience (Brint 2001; Vaisey 2007).
Community as Identity
The community experience at State-Line Farm also rests on their collective identity as
like-minded ethical prosumers of food, and the symbolic, moral, and cognitive boundaries5 that
support it. This identity has two key parts. First, shareholders at State-Line use language laden
with dichotomies of “ethical” and “unethical,” “healthy” and “unhealthy”, and “right” and
“wrong” to paint a picture of State-Line Farm as a community organized around ethics and
health which is set against a larger group of unethical, uninformed, unhealthy others. Second
and, as I will later demonstrate, most importantly members identify as being like-minded in
regards to their beliefs about ethical food production and consumption.
Shareholders expressed anger, frustration, and sadness in regards to how the government,
‘big-agra’, and the medical field viewed and interacted with those who have non-traditional
beliefs about food, nutrition, and agriculture. In conversation these often unnamed ‘others’ were
painted as ignorant, as victims of the system, or as unethical perpetrators. In contrast,
shareholders viewed themselves as aware, informed, and ethical in their choices. Tara, who
valued the organic and sustainable practices used at State-Line, provides one such example. At
14
the time of her first interview Tara had recently begun following a raw food diet She gestured
excitedly with her hands as she told me about the benefits of raw food and the dangers of
consuming processed foods and artificial sweeteners. Throughout Tara’s interview it was clear
that she questioned the motives of major food producers and felt that their actions were not in the
best interest of the public.
“They put natural flavors [on the label]..., that is a chemical, they use at
least another 120 chemicals to make up that ‘natural flavoring’ chemical, but
people go ‘oh it’s natural I should eat that.’ It’s an excitotoxin, so here they are
putting all this in front of people, and it is like the government is trying to make
people stupid so that we believe everything that they tell us... How can that be
ethical, for them to knowingly put a poison out there that are knowingly killing
people’s brain cells, I just don’t get it.”
Shareholder’s concerns about the presence of hidden chemicals in mainstream food is not limited
to processed items. Members of the State-Line Farm CSA were also deeply worried about the
use of non-organic pesticides, fertilizers, and other treatments in contemporary large-scale
agriculture, and many cited State-Line’s earth-friendly practices as an important reason for
joining. The line between the ethical, sustainable practices used at State-Line and the unethical
and unsafe methods of ‘big-agra’ is made particularly salient as members deal with potato bugs;
rather than spray chemicals, bugs and their eggs were picked off each plant by hand and then
destroyed.
Ellen straightened up from her crouched position to address the group. She
explained that commercial farmers use 4 different toxic sprays to battle the bugs,
15
and spray whether they see bugs or not. Four different chemicals are used because
otherwise the bugs become resistant. Someone behind me mentioned that they had
seen a farmer out spraying while wearing what looked like hazmat gear, complete
with a respirator. Ellen said that she had seen her neighbor wearing something
similar. People paused to consider the grim idea of wearing hazmat outfits for
farming. Soon, people began to crack jokes – albeit dark ones – about the
chemical use in an apparent attempt to lighten the mood and ease tensions as we
resumed our work.
Field Notes: Wednesday July 9, 2010
In addition to viewing themselves as different from those outside the organization,
members of the State-Line Farm CSA also view themselves as a community of like-minded
people. That is, being different from outsiders is not enough to define their community;
community at State-Line also means sharing closely-held beliefs about the production and
consumption of food. Thomas, for instance, had many friends and co-workers whom he believed
to be “good people” that didn’t understand his views on food or agriculture or his passionate
stance against what he believes is a rampant consumer culture. Thomas and his wife have been
CSA members since the earliest years of operation, and are ardent supporters of local, organic,
and small-scale farming. They practice organic gardening at home, replacing what they view to
be ‘invasive’ greenery with edible plants. We spoke as we crawled along parallel rows of
potatoes, removing destructive bugs and their larvae and squishing them between our gloved
fingers. “Sometimes I think –out there- that people think I’m kind of a freak,” Thomas chuckled.
“But here- here I’m not a freak.” Though made in a light hearted tone, Thomas’ comment
16
communicates a deeper sense of belonging and a perception of shared ideals at the CSA than he
experiences with friends or acquaintances outside of the farm.
Patty, introduced earlier, expressed sentiments similar to Thomas, likening the fellowship
present at the CSA to that of a church, noting that “you go to church because you get to share
that fellowship with somebody that thinks the same way as you do, and when you’re working in
the garden, many of them think the same way…” Ellen, too, made statements indicating she
perceived others as holding the same beliefs she did. In mid-July of the second season of data
collection shareholders received an email from Ellen. Usually email was reserved for
communicating changes to our schedule due to weather or for requesting substitutes for members
unable to make their shifts. This email, however, began with a brief and direct statement from
Ellen, reading simply “Excuse my French, but NO SHIT!” What followed was a forwarded
message titled “Johns Hopkins Update – Very Good Article” that offered a number of dietary
recommendations for avoiding and treating cancer. These recommendations included the
substitution of soy milk for cow’s milk under the claim that milk produces mucus which in turn
feeds cancer, and claims that diets should be made of 80% fresh vegetables and fruits not raised
above 104 degrees Fahrenheit. Ellen’s introductory statement implies that she believes these
‘new guidelines’ published by Johns Hopkins, which in reality were not published by the
university6, are supported and shared by the group - an important aspect of the creation and
maintenance of community or ‘we-feeling’ (Brint 2001; Calhoun 1980; Kanter 1972; Vaisey
2007).
Community as Action
It is one thing for an individual to say that they are part of a community but another for
them to act on that sense of community. Calhoun (1980:110) suggests that it takes a community,
17
not simply “any given population aggregate” to achieve collective goals and goods. The bonds of
community- those of affect, loyalty, common values, and personal concern- create a “selfregulatory mechanism on the ‘rational’ decisions and actions” (110) of community members.
These bonds were evident in the actions of State-Line shareholders. As they labor in the fields
shareholders are separated by their individual responsibilities but share a common goal; they
develop a sense of responsibility to the whole as their actions have repercussions for the success
of the group. Their actions serve as evidence that they are not, as Calhoun states, “any given
population aggregate,” but members of a community acting out of affect, loyalty, and concern
rather than obligation.
At the start of each growing season shareholders are assigned to a crop area. They are
expected to become ‘resident experts’ in their crop by learning about common pests and
problems that may surface and methods for preventing and treating them. Shareholders are also
responsible for the full life cycle of the crop, from planting through harvest. At the
organizational level, this division of labor creates a system of pooled interdependence
(Thompson 1967:54). This means that while those working in the squash patch do not need to
interact with those in the tomato patch to complete their jobs, they are interdependent in the
sense that a successful season relies upon each area producing the best possible crop. While
workers in one crop area do not regularly work with those in another crop area, the fruits of their
labor are combined at the end of each shift as the harvest is divided amongst members. That this
pooled interdependence is related to feelings of responsibility to the group and community
oriented behavior is evident in the actions of the shareholders as they place the needs of the
group ahead of their own needs or desires. While Kanter (1972) suggests that limiting a worker
18
to one task might reduce their responsibility to the group, it is also possible that doing so may
increase their responsibility to the group, so long as the tasks are interdependent.
One example can be found in Cynthia’s choice to reduce her participation by becoming a
substitute after years of being an active shareholder. Cynthia explained that she valued her time
on the farm as a shareholder, but in the previous season she and her husband travelled quite a bit,
causing her to miss several shifts. On more than one occasion Cynthia was unable to find a
substitute, leaving her guilt-ridden. She explained that having substitutes take so many of her
shifts resulted in her crop receiving inconsistent and unskilled care. As a result, other
shareholders didn’t receive the quantity or quality of harvest from her crop area that they would
have had she been a more reliable member. “It just didn’t seem fair,” she said. When faced with
another season of heavy travel Cynthia chose to volunteer as a substitute.
Others expressed guilt over missing shifts or concern that three hours a week simply
wasn’t enough. Some shareholders admitted to working shifts that they were not obligated to
work, or working when there was no shift at all, to ensure that there was a good harvest. Chris,
for instance, normally works on Saturday mornings. One weekend the Saturday shift was
cancelled due to severe rain storms. Those who were able gathered the following morning, as
was the farm policy, to do what work we could. Because it was a Sunday Chris was unable to
attend; he had church service at the same time we were to work, and he and his family had plans
to spend the remainder of the day at the beach. But as our small group of workers were finishing
our shift at 10am Chris arrived, his family in tow, to work the tomatoes. As he hurried out to the
field his children visited with the animals in the barn. Their cooler and bags full of beach toys
were visible in the car. “He felt terrible about not being able to make it out this morning,” Chris’s
wife explained, “he was so worried that the tomatoes would be damaged by all the rain
19
yesterday... he wanted to come out just for a while to try to get them up off the ground.” As Chris
hadn’t been able to come to the work shift that morning he would not be leaving with a harvest
basket full of food; we had only harvested enough for the four of us who had been able to work.
Chris’s labor would be unrewarded, at least in terms of the immediate future. Furthermore, had
he arrived later, or had we finished our work earlier, no one would have known that he had come
to work despite his busy schedule. His willingness to sacrifice his time- and the time of his
family- for no reward or recognition is evidence that Chris feels a sense of responsibility to the
farm and the shareholders. No one would be able to blame Chris for damage done by the heavy
rains, and he faced no criticism for his inability to attend the makeup day; the majority of the
members were also unable to attend the Sunday morning shift. Still, Chris came.
While shareholders often look out for the group by making decisions about their level of
work or involvement based on what is best for the whole rather than the individual, there are also
instances where the group looks out for singular shareholders. Late in the season of 2010
Elizabeth lost her sister to illness. Understandably, she didn’t attend her shift the day following
her sister’s passing. As work came to a close and the food was divided amongst those present,
one member suggested that they create a basket for Elizabeth, offering that “I know she didn’t
work today... but I’m sure she could really use it right now, you know?” Ellen and the other
shareholders agreed, and a spare basket was pulled from the supply shed and filled with food.
Ellen delivered it later that afternoon. Though it was against the formal policies of the CSA,
Elizabeth received a weekly share of the harvest despite her absence, and this basket was filled
with food that had been harvested for those who were present. While each member’s sacrifice
was small- just a fraction of their share for the week- the gesture was rich with symbolic
importance. The creation of a harvest basket for Elizabeth shows that the other shareholders were
20
concerned about their fellow member and wanted to show their support in what was the best way
they believed they could- through the gift of nutritious, ethical food.
IDEOLOGICAL DISAGREEMENT AT STATE-LINE FARM
Recent work by Stephen Vaisey advances this claim, finding that it is not just shared
beliefs that are important, but their “capacity for orienting action.” (2007:857). Vaisey terms
shared beliefs with the capacity for orienting action shared moral order, and argues that this
shared moral order is important for the experience of community. Vaisey’s findings indicate that
structural factors such as authority, interaction, and investment do play a role, but they alone
cannot create feelings of community. As he states, “[w]hile a high level of moral order is
therefore not sufficient by itself to produce we-feeling... its absence may be sufficient to prevent
it...that is, while the presence or absence of moral order is not sufficient in its own right to
produce or prevent the we-feeling, it is a necessary part of all the recipes that are sufficient to do
so” (2007:864). At first glance these findings seem to align with the experience of community at
State-Line Farm, where shareholders emphasize the importance of their beliefs for membership
and how their beliefs are supported by the community. A closer look, however, finds that
shareholder’s beliefs about what defines healthy, ethical food vary on several points, and these
variations are significant enough to cause tension and disagreements between members.
Varying Views on Food, Agriculture, and Nutrition
For some shareholders the fact that the food grown at State-Line Farm is organic from
seed to harvest is the most important aspect. Jennifer, for example, learned about the State-Line
Farm CSA when her children were young; her two boys had attended the summer camp offered
at State-Line and her daughter had visited a few times as well, but it wasn’t until the children
were older that she became a member. Jennifer explained that her children’s digestive systems
21
had not developed properly, requiring that she monitor their diet as well as her own, as she
practiced extended breast feeding. This difficult situation had been made even more challenging
when those around Jennifer responded negatively to her altered diet.
“People can’t seem to understand how I ‘dealt with’ not being able to eat
certain foods, or they would get offended when I or the kids wouldn’t eat
something they had prepared...My husband’s parents – they put tons of butter on
their vegetables and they’re overweight- they think that my kids are ‘wasting
away’ because they can see their ribs.”
To protect her children she switched to an all organic, minimally processed diet. Jennifer is
confident that she’s making the right choice when it comes to food. “If it weren’t organic, I
wouldn’t have joined the CSA,” she told me. Similarly, Deborah began to insist on only organic
foods after her battle with cancer, certain that the chemicals found in non-organic foods are
detrimental to her health and potentially carcinogenic. She gestured to the neighboring farms one
morning as we stopped to stretch and have a drink of water. “I wonder how much of the
chemicals they use end up over here. I mean, the wind can carry them. And they could run
through the soil right? From the rain? It just seems like you can’t stop it.” Deborah admitted it
could be hard to get only organic food. She tried several farmers markets and co-ops, but found
that not all small, local growers are organic, and each grower had different standards when
determining what was ‘organic’ or ‘chemical free’. Determining what was safe to eat could be
difficult. At State-Line she could see everything. She could ask questions of Ellen, and she could
read the labels on the different products used.
22
Other shareholders are critical of the USDA organic label. While they believe that truly
sustainable agriculture must be organic, they have concerns about how the processes in place for
securing the official ‘organic’ label might lead producers to use practices that, in the end, are less
sustainable or less healthy. One such shareholder is Greg, who explained during an interview
how the USDA guidelines favor feeding cattle grain instead of grass, as the grain is certified
organic but grass is not.
“Organic can lead you astray sometimes...if you feed beef grass, what
they’re supposed to eat, their Omega 3 to Omega 6 fatty acid ratio will be 1 to 2
or 1 to 1 and that’s ideal for our bodies, and if you feed them grain the 3 to 6 ratio
can be as high as 1 to 40, and that imbalance in our bodies is detrimental and
causes disease, heart disease or what not, and uh so eating grass fed cattle is far
more important to me than eating organic cattle. Organic cattle can be put on a
little paddock outside and fed grain – organic grain- and they’re still getting the
grain. So the same with dairy cattle. So organic milk, I’d choose – well I get raw
milk, from a grass fed herd. I wouldn’t get raw milk from a grain fed herd.”
Greg detailed how he goes out of his way to choose organic produce over traditional,
non-organic produce, carefully emphasizing that he believes the standards and guidelines set by
the government for organic agriculture are not necessarily in line with what he believes to be the
best research on sustainable agriculture and nutrition, conducted by the Weston A. Price
Foundation. So, while other shareholders rely on foods labeled or sold as organic to avoid the
consumption of toxic chemicals, Greg makes exceptions in order to maintain what he believes to
be the most nutritionally balanced diet possible.
23
In contrast to shareholders like Greg, Deborah, and Jennifer, Cynthia does not rank
organic, chemical-free food as her top priority. Cynthia is more concerned about eating locally
than eating organically. While discussing Cynthia’s path to membership at State-Line she told
me that when she first moved to the area with her husband she wanted to start a back yard
garden. They ended up renting an apartment, however, so she had no land on which to grow.
Later she learned about State-Line through her husband’s colleague, and joined shortly
thereafter. While she liked that the food was organic, it wouldn’t have stopped her from joining
if it hadn’t been.
How food is prepared and eaten can also be a point of contention. State-Line Farm has
several members who follow a raw food diet, or who follow a raw food diet as closely as
possible since gaining access to fresh raw food is challenging and costly, particularly in the
winter months. Jo is one such member. Like others that “eat raw,” Jo does not heat food above
104 degrees Fahrenheit, believing that heat depletes food of vital nutrients. Jo is also a
vegetarian. She believes abstention from meat, processed foods, and non-organic produce is not
only healthy, but the ethical choice as it has a smaller impact on the environment. “I can’t
remember the figure,” she said as we walked down the path to her plot, “but I know that when
you compare how many people you can feed with one acre of land on a vegetarian diet to how
many people you can feed with an acre of land with a meat based diet, it’s so much more. The
answer? Go vegetarian!” Jo admitted the changes were hard at first, and her friends didn’t always
understand, but the benefits of the diet were too plentiful. “I’d never give up raw now,” she said
firmly.
Not everyone agrees that raw foods are the most nutritious, however. Marta, a
shareholder in her first year of membership, is one. On our way to the supply shed Marta began
24
to tell me about a news story she thought would be of interest to me. “It was about, that, that raw
or raw foodies or whatever, that it’s not healthy for you. They say some foods you can’t eat rawyou won’t get the nutrients.” She paused to switch the heavy basket of green beans from one hip
to the other. “And some you burn more calories chewing than you get from the food- so when
you see these, um, vigorous raw food people they are slender,” she concluded with roll of her
eyes. “And [they] said our jaw has changed to deal with different foods than we used to have.”
For Marta those who followed the raw way of eating were doing damage to their body- they may
be slender, but Marta believed them to be under nourished. Marta used the example of the human
jaw to emphasize that the raw diet is not only unhealthy, but biologically wrong for
contemporary humans.
Conflict within the Community
While the different points from which the shareholders view food, nutrition, and
agriculture may not seem so far apart, they can be quite divisive. My first experience with the
power these positions have and how they can clash came towards the end of my first season at
State-Line. The harvest had been large that morning, and several of us pitched in to help divide
it before the 10am deadline. I sat on the hot pavement sorting potatoes into neat, even piles. A
few feet away Margie and Ruth were using rubber bands to bundle kale. “Have you heard from
Ezra lately?” asked Margie, as she brushed her thick hair from her face, leaving a smudge of rich
earth on her cheek. The question seemed to catch Ruth by surprise. She stopped loading kale into
her harvest basket and straightened up to look Margie in the eye. With one hand she shielded her
eyes from the early morning sun. Her face became tense. “You haven’t heard? Ezra passed away.
The cancer came back.”
25
“Oh!” gasped Margie. “I thought he was doing much better! The last I heard he was in
remission and feeling well. He was getting stronger.” She shifted her weight from side to side
anxiously. “He was,” affirmed Ruth. “But the doctors thought that since he was getting stronger
he should start working protein into his diet. They encouraged him to eat yogurt. They should
never have done that. It fed the cancer. All the tumors came back. He should have never-.” Ruth
became agitated as she told the story; her hands gestured wildly and the pitch of her voice
climbed steadily.
“He was doing the Gerson Therapy7, right?” interjected Margie. “The yogurt should have
been fine if he were stable.”
“He was juicing. Only organic and raw. The dairy fed his cancer,” charged Ruth.
“If he was strong enough..." insisted Margie. Her voice was firm, her face slightly
reddened; for Margie this was deeply personal. Margie had helped her father treat his own cancer
with the Gerson Therapy some time back, and firmly believed the Gerson Therapy had cured
him. Ruth, however, was quite adamant that the blame for Ezra’s death lay squarely on the
yogurt and the doctor who so ignorantly encouraged him to eat it. A few weeks earlier I had
spoken with Ruth at length about the China Study8– a book she had read that had changed how
she thought about food and nutrition. She explained to me that the studies in the book found
numerous links between animal products and many forms of disease, including cancer. Ruth
believed strongly that the best diets were those that contained large amounts of fresh, dark, leafy
greens. “We don’t really need that much protein,” she explained, “all we need we can get from
nuts or beans.”
Now, on this sunny Saturday morning, I watched as two women tried to make sense of
Ezra’s death. Each clinging tightly to their food ideology, they attempted to fit the series of
26
events that culminated in Ezra’s passing with what they know and believe about food, nutrition,
and well-being. At the peak of the argument they stopped working. Slowly, they began their
tasks again and the conversation halted. Other shareholders arrived to pick up their baskets and
leave for the day; there was no more time for discussion, heated or otherwise.
Not all conflict at State-Line develops into raised voices and temperatures; often it is
much more subtle. A good example of this occurred as Siobhan, Deborah and I worked together
to lay a weed-blocking landscaping plastic. The conversation turned to eating habits and it soon
became clear that Siobhan and Deborah had very different beliefs about the ideal way of eating.
While most tasks on the farm may be considered ‘individual’ activities in that they do not require
collaborative effort to be completed, laying the landscaping plastic was not one of them. This
task is best achieved with two to four people working very closely together. Trenches are dug
along each row and then the plastic, which comes on large heavy spools, is rolled over the row.
With a shareholder on each side, the plastic is pulled taut and the third helps to bury the edges in
the trenches. In this instance Deborah and Siobhan worked to pull the material tight, leaving
them head to head as I walked a few steps behind. We talked as we worked, with Siobhan and
Deborah comparing eating styles.
Siobhan had eliminated wheat products about a year ago but still ate meat, though only
in small quantities and primarily chicken. She was concerned about the amount of fat, sugar, and
preservatives in foods. Deborah ate wheat and some meat but like Siobhan ate very little of it.
Deborah stated that she joined the CSA in order to get more nutritious food and had become
interested in nutrition after reading the China Study. Deborah spoke with excitement about the
China Study, claiming it was the most comprehensive nutritional study ever done. “The findings
are just amazing,” she said confidently. Deborah went on to explain that The China study
27
suggests that meat and animal based foods like dairy and eggs are detrimental to health. “Milk
can actually feed cancer,” Deborah said. Siobhan, however, disagreed. She countered that the
work of Weston A. Price is the most comprehensive study on nutrition ever completed, and it
suggests that meat, eggs, and dairy are necessary and healthy, though only when they come from
grass fed animals. Additionally, Weston A. Price advocates for the consumption of raw or
unpasteurized milk. “It’s real milk,” Siobhan said. The conversation became halted and
eventually stopped altogether. We worked in silence for the last few feet until we came to the
end of the row. After cutting the plastic, Deborah and Siobhan stood to see the results of our
labor. As we stretched our backs a drizzle set in, and we began to chat casually about the weather
– a much more neutral topic.
While most tensions and conflict arose over differences in beliefs about how and what
should be consumed, which are arguably private acts unrelated to the production occurring at
State-Line, evidence suggests that these different beliefs also influenced ideas about how food
ought to be produced, harvested, and handled at the farm. During a follow up interview after her
second full year of membership, Tara, who was in charge of distributing the harvest, discussed
how the different views held by her fellow shareholders made her uncomfortable. As other
shareholders brought their crops in from the field Tara would wash, sort, bundle, and place the
harvest into shareholder’s “harvest baskets”. Through these frequent but brief interactions, Tara
came to have a sense of the different beliefs shareholders had about food and nutrition. She also
found that these beliefs influenced not only how people believed their food should be consumed,
but how it should be grown, harvested, and handled. These differences caused difficulties for
Tara at times, as other shareholders attempted to impose their views about the harvesting and
28
handling of food upon her through critique of how she fulfilled her duties within her own area:
“...there were some ladies there that were, uh, kind of irritating me a lot
(laughs)...they didn’t particularly care for the way I did things. And, it wasn’t
even that it was incorrect it just wasn’t they way they liked... people become
territorial about their space and their food when you’re putting it [in the
baskets]...”
This statement stands in contrast to Tara’s much earlier pronouncements about the
presence of community at State-Line. In the early stages of her membership, Tara believed she
was a part of a community of like-minded others. She looked forward to time spent with the
group and felt as though people were seeking each other out for support. Two years later,
however, Tara’s experiences had dampened her enthusiasm; rather than emphasizing community
or the support of others in terms of beliefs about food as her first interview had, Tara’s follow up
interview emphasized the benefits of the food and the knowledge she had gained about organic
farming.
MAINTAINING COMMUNITY THROUGH FALSE CONSENSUS
Despite the presence of different food and agriculture related ideologies which, as shown,
is capable of creating tension and conflict amongst shareholders, most members of the State-Line
Farm CSA profess feelings of belonging and commitment to what they believe is a community
of like-minded people. That is, they perceive other members as sharing their beliefs about food,
nutrition, and agriculture. This perception, also known as the false consensus effect, is the
29
cognitive mechanism supporting shareholder’s identity as members of a community of ethical
food prosumers. False consensus is “...the idea that actors over estimate or misestimate the level
of agreement or compliance with a norm or belief in groups.” (Kitts 2003:223). Several
explanations have been offered for the presence of false consensus. Some argue that it stems
from actor’s projection of their own beliefs onto friends and close contacts (Jussim and Osgood
1989), while others propose that it is easier for actors to recall instances of agreement rather than
disagreement, leading to an increased perception of similarity (Ross et al. 1977). In their
comprehensive review of research on false consensus Marks and Miller (1987) note that such
explanations may be grouped together under the umbrella of ‘intrinsic bias’, and suggest that
these behaviors are a function of the actor’s need to bolster their self esteem or justify their
position.
Other explanations suggest that false consensus is not the outcome intrinsic bias but is
instead due to information bias; Bosveld, Koomen, and Vander-Pligt (1994), Kitts (2003) and
Deutsch (1998) have all found that the availability of similar others resulted in greater levels of
false consensus, while access to dissimilar others decreased the effect. In other words, false
consensus was a product of selective exposure; homophily provided actors with a biased sample
of the world from which to draw conclusions, leading to estimates of greater agreement with
norms or beliefs than actually present (Kitts 2003). Evidence from State-Line Farm supports
information bias theories of false consensus. Homophily due to recruitment methods combined
with a system of labor division that greatly restricts the flow of information results in members’
conclusions that others within the organization are similar to themselves in regards to beliefs
about food, nutrition, and agriculture.
Mechanisms Supporting False Consensus
30
Shareholder’s ability to maintain the perception that they are a community of like-minded
people is dependent upon the presence of false consensus, but false consensus does not develop
ex nihilo. It is the result of a set of three mechanisms, with false consensus being primary.
Homophilous recruitment of new members functions as a relation mechanism, shaping the
membership and the connections between individuals within the organization, while the division
of labor, an environmental mechanism, shapes interactions.
Homophily - Recruitment at State-Line plays an important role in the homophily present
within the organization. While Ellen lists the CSA on a web directory for local farms and CSAs,
the majority of CSA members are recruited via social networks. In its first year the CSA had
approximately twelve members, but quickly grew as existing members recruited their friends and
family members, and as farm camp and school-to-farm participants learned about the CSA.
Network-based recruitment results in shareholders who are far more likely to already know, and
share socio-demographic characteristics and beliefs with, at least one other member upon
joining the organization (Cohen 1977; Kandel 1978; Lazarsfeld and Merton 1954; McPherson et
al.. 1987; McPherson et al.. 2001; Reuf et al. 2003) Furthermore, network-based recruitment
creates homophilous clusters, which are key to member’s perception that they are amongst likeminded others. As McPherson et al.. observe, “[h]omophily limits people’s social worlds in a
way that has powerful implications for the information they receive, the attitudes they form, and
the interactions they experience.” (2001:415). One might expect that these clusters would, over
time, become less distinct as members of the CSA interact, create new bonds, and expand their
networks. On the contrary, I find that these clusters remain relatively unchanged throughout the
course of the working season and in some cases become more pronounced as members continue
31
to recruit friends and family members over the years. This stability over time is due in large part
to the division of labor and the sorting of shareholders into their assigned crop areas.
Division of Labor - Labor at State-Line Farm CSA is divided by crop area, with each
shareholder assigned to one crop area for the season. Some crop areas are small, requiring only
one shareholder per shift, while others are larger and require two. As has been demonstrated, this
system of labor division creates pooled interdependence whereby shareholder’s feelings of
responsibility, commitment, and belonging are increased, contributing to the community
experience (Lawler, Thye, and Yoon 2000). The division of labor plays another key role,
however. The assignment of shareholders to specific crops distributed over an area of eleven
acres shapes the quality and quantity of interaction by limiting shareholder’s access to one
another. During formal interviews members noted that they enjoyed “bumping into” other
members at the farm, and this is an accurate description of the average interaction. Crop areas are
accessed from one main path the runs the length of the farm, ending at the main tool shed and
harvest distribution area. This allows shareholders to exchange brief pleasantries as they pass
each other on their way to and from the tool shed, but discourages in depth conversation.
Additionally, these trips are infrequent, as the walk is long and uses valuable time needed for
working the field. Figure 1 provides a map of the farm.
Most shareholders are not completely isolated, however. Many work with another
member, also assigned to their crop area. But just as the division of labor shapes the depth and
frequency of interaction amongst members, so does the process of assigning members to their
crop areas. Upon joining, many shareholders request to work in a crop area with a friend,
coworker, or family member. When scheduling and labor needs allow, Ellen obliges the requests.
This further reduces the opportunities for shareholders to have in-depth interactions with other
32
shareholders not already part of their network. Though there may be roughly twenty people
working during any given shift the number of people that a shareholder interacts with is reduced
to just a handful, and those with whom they interact the most are likely to be a close friend, coworker, or family member. In other words, the people with whom shareholders interact most are
also most likely to be people with whom they share interests, beliefs, and caring bonds – in short,
like-minded others.
Breakdown of mechanisms and perceptions of community
Though recruitment induced homophily and the organization of interaction via the
division of labor work in tandem to enable most members to maintain the belief that they are
amongst others like themselves, and to perceive the group to be a community of ethical food
prosumers, not all members shared this view. Evidence suggests that this is the result of a
breakdown in one or both supporting mechanisms; members not recruited through networks lack
the necessary ties to support the development of false consensus, and those who experience a
greater than average level of contact with other shareholders have access to disconfirming
evidence which decreases their ability to maintain false consensus. As shown, being in close
physical proximity increased the potential for conflict; Siobhan and Deborah experienced
conflict as they worked to lay landscaping plastic, and it was as food was being divided in the
common area that Margie and Ruth argued over the role of dairy in Ezra’s illness, treatment, and
eventual death. Because most shareholders spent most of their time working alone or with one
other partner within their crop area, interactions like these were limited. Some shareholders,
however, held positions that allowed for frequent, repeated contact with a variety of members.
For example, crops such as peas have short seasons, allowing the shareholder responsible for
them to assist with other crops after their own is no longer active.
33
Brent, a tall man with a rustic appearance that belies his background in science and
medicine, had worked in the pea section for four years. A self-identified introvert, Brent spoke
with me about how he often worked in other crop areas and did “whatever needed to be done.” In
the process, he had the chance to work and speak with a larger number of shareholders than other
members. He acknowledged that he often took the ‘listener’ role in the conversation and had
come to know the different views and beliefs held by shareholders across State-Line Farm,
stating that some people had rather “strong” ideas about food and nutrition. While Brent never
outright denigrated other members, his word choice was careful and his tone implied a level of
distancing between himself and those with views that differed from his own- views he felt were
based on faulty reasoning or bad information. For Brent, the farm was not a community or a
place to be with like-minded others. Instead, it was a place to learn about organic farming with
others who were different from himself. Like Brent, Paul also had a higher than average level of
contact with other shareholders. In a follow-up interview Paul discussed how he found talking to
others around the farm interesting, but that he sometimes felt out of place. Other shareholders, he
said, had a “mother earth vibe.” State-Line’s CSA served as a source of healthy, low-cost food
for Paul. It also gave him a chance to get out of the house, which Paul valued because he worked
from home. But the CSA was not a place for him to be amongst like-minded others, or a place
for him to seek community.
Tara, the shareholder responsible for distribution of the harvest, also had a higher than
average level of interaction with others. Though these interactions were usually brief, they were
enough to breakdown Tara’s belief that she was amongst like minded others. As the quote from
her follow up interview demonstrated, Tara was aware that others held different beliefs from her
own, and these differences created tensions. Tara’s experience is particularly helpful when trying
34
to understand the mechanisms at work. Early in her experience as a shareholder Tara emphasized
community, support, and caring as major benefits of membership. She reported valuing the time
spent with others that she perceived to be like herself. Like many others, Tara had multiple ties
to the farm; Ellen was a frequent customer at Tara’s boutique, and Tara’s niece was also a
shareholder. But Tara’s interactions with the other shareholders made their ideological
differences apparent. Furthermore, these differences were disruptive to Tara’s work and created
tensions that weakened her perception of like-mindedness and community.
Other shareholders never develop a sense of like-mindedness or community. Small in
number, these shareholders are similar in that they found their way to State-Line Farm CSA on
their own, rather than through network ties. Grace, a member for two years, fits this category.
Grace joined the CSA after discovering it on an internet directory for local farms and CSAs.
During a follow up interview at the end of her second year of membership, Grace described her
relationship to other members as similar to ‘bumping into people at the Y,’ in that she saw the
same people over and over, but didn’t form real connections with them. The level of interaction
at State-Line was not enough to build community in Grace’s eyes. For illustrative contrast, Grace
offered up the example of her church, saying that it was there that she had found community, not
at the farm.
Absent supporting mechanisms, members are less likely to experience community and
more likely to adopt an instrumental orientation to the group. This instrumental orientation can
be seen in Brent, Paul, and Grace’s comments, which emphasize material or individual benefits
like affordable organic food or increased knowledge, and downplay affective ties and a sense of
belonging. An instrumental orientation can also be seen in members’ actions. In contrast to
community-oriented members like Cynthia and Chris, whose level of participation reflects their
35
concern for the benefit of the group, instrumentally oriented members are more likely to
participate in ways that demonstrate a prioritizing of the individual. Late in 2009 personal
circumstances caused Margie’s attendance became unpredictable, but she maintained her
membership for the season so that she would have access (when she could work) to the food
produced on the farm. Unable to afford the membership fee in 2010, Margie opted to serve as a
substitute member, and covered as many shifts as she was able. During the 2010 season Ruth
renewed her membership, but sent her inexperienced husband to tend her crop area, stating that
she was too busy to participate. Both Ruth and Margie’s actions demonstrate a prioritizing of
their own wants and needs (i.e., access to the food produced) over the needs of the CSA
shareholders as a group (e.g., skilled and consistent care of the crops).
DISCUSSION
Prior work has, at times, painted community as a greedy institution requiring large
investments of time and self in order to extract the benefits of trust, support, cohesion, and
belonging. For belief based groups, meaning those for whom the question ‘who are we and what
are we doing here?’ is answered with specific beliefs, morals, and values that hold the potential
to guide the action of members, this investment often comes in the form of intersubjectively held
beliefs (Brint 2005; Calhoun 1980; Kanter 1972; Vaisey 2007). That is, the members of the
community are aware of the beliefs of others, and they are in agreement9. The findings of this
study suggest that this need not be the case, however; under certain conditions it is possible to
enjoy the benefits of community without such heavy investment. The members of State-Line
Farm CSA do not have intersubjective shared beliefs but perceived shared beliefs. While a
variety of food ideologies are present among members, these differences do not prove
disintegrative. Members of the organization claim that the group holds shared values and
36
orientations regarding food and agriculture, and rely upon the perception of these shared values
as a building block for their experience of the group as a community.
Previous theory and research has suggested that homogeneity of beliefs is key to the
experience of ‘we-ness’, commitment, and belonging within some types of community. My
findings indicate, however, that total homogeneity of belief may not be necessary if the structure
of the group or organization creates conditions favorable for the cognitive mechanism of false
consensus to function. Conditions that support false consensus include limited opportunities for
in-depth interaction and the presence of some level of homophily or homophilous clusters.
Together, these conditions allow for information bias induced false consensus (Bosveld et al..
1994; Deutsch 1988; Kitts 2003); The division of labor within the CSA reduced opportunities for
in-depth conversation and restricted the spread of detailed information about food ideologies and
beliefs, resulting in fewer opportunities for the discovery of disagreement and the development
of tension. Furthermore, the recruitment of new members through the social networks of existing
networks allowed for homophilous clusters to develop. Because contact between members was
restricted, members drew inferences about others in the group based on those members they did
know- often a member of their homophilous cluster.
These environmental (division of labor) and relational (recruitment induced homophily)
mechanisms worked in concert to support the mechanism of false consensus and the resulting
experience of community. It is important to note that each, alone, would not have produced the
same result. For example, recruitment through existing member’s social networks allowed for
homophilous clusters to form but without the division of labor, this homosocial reproduction
(Kanter 1977) would have increased the potential for conflict by creating clusters of members
with different beliefs regarding food in agriculture within a group oriented around the ethical
37
production and consumption of food. At the same time, it is unlikely that false consensus would
have developed without these homophilous clusters, as they enabled members to form biased
estimates about the level of agreement regarding beliefs and values.
Arguing for the importance of perceived shared belief in the development and
maintenance of community does not imply that the presence and awareness of any form of
disagreement would prohibit the development of community. For example, shareholders at StateLine held varying beliefs about politics, religion, and education. Bumper stickers supporting
republican and democratic presidential candidates adorned both cars and harvest baskets, and
members could be heard discussing their religious orientations without tension. Awareness of
these differences is not detrimental to the development of community in this case because StateLine Farm CSA was not a political or religious organization; beliefs about foreign policy,
education, economic policy, or religion were not central to the purpose of the group. Beliefs
about food, nutrition, and agriculture were central, however, and so it is the perception of likemindedness in relation to these beliefs that is crucial for the development of community.
My findings also indicate that the perception of shared belief has implications for how the
members of the community attend to its essential activities and achieve its established goals.
Some insight into this relationship can be found in organizational theory and research, which
suggests that organizations composed of individuals or clusters of individuals that disagree about
the mission, values, or core beliefs of the organization are more likely to experience a number of
negative outcomes. These include: goal incongruence with subsequent reduced trust and
willingness to prioritize the good of the group (Wilkins and Ouchi 1983); lower levels of group
performance (Jehn and Mannix 2001); and feelings of tension related to relationship conflict
(i.e., tension, animosity or annoyance among members) (Jehn, Northcraft, and Neale 1999).
38
Relationship conflict in turn can increase risk of member dissatisfaction, member withdrawal,
reduced commitment, and conflict over tasks (Jehn 1995; Choi and Cho 2010). These outcomes
are visible, to varying degree, in the behaviors and statements of CSA members like Margie,
Ruth, and others for whom the community-generating mechanisms failed. This suggests that it is
not simply the presence of disagreement- as earlier work has implied- but the awareness of
disagreement that negatively impacts the ability of the group to attend to essential activities and
achieve goals. Furthermore, this highlights the fine line between a group or organization and a
community.
Members’ awareness of disagreement did not cause the CSA, as an organization, to fail.
Those members who did not benefit from the perception of shared belief continued to maintain
membership within the group, but were less likely (as an extension of organizational theory to
the study of community would suggest) to engage in behaviors indicative of the community
experience, such as working more frequently or more intensely than contractually obligated or
more generally placing the needs of the whole ahead of their own. Rather, their behavior was
more individually and instrumentally oriented than their peers who were able to maintain a sense
of like-mindedness. So, while awareness of disagreement over core beliefs may diminish the
sense of community and consequently negatively impact the effectiveness of the group it does
not, ipso facto, prohibit the group from functioning.
In closing, these findings add depth to recent research regarding the role of shared
morals, beliefs, or ideologies in the generation of the community experience and puts into
question theories positing that vibrant communities cannot exist in the presence of fundamental
disagreements. At the same time, this study also highlights several important areas that would
benefit from additional theorizing. The identification of mechanisms that allow for the
39
experience of community within a belief based group despite the presence of disagreements over
those core beliefs upon which the group is purportedly centered opens up the possibility that
combinations of other, yet unidentified mechanisms may produce similar results. Moving
forward, future research into additional avenues for the development of the experience of
community in the presence of such disagreements may prove fruitful, as would explorations of
the threshold at which such mechanisms begin to fail. Also of value would be additional research
and theorizing regarding the role of interaction for the experience of community. As the case of
State-Line Farm demonstrates, interactions can vary in quality, quantity, frequency, and their
effect on the community experience. As new forms of community develop, some in which
interaction is mediated by technology, a more refined understanding of how variance in
interaction is related to the community experience will become necessary. Finally, just as those
in decades past could not have foreseen communities comprised of distant individuals linked
through their personal computers, today’s scholars face an ever changing and growing
conception of community. This changing landscape demands that we continually refine not only
our definitions and measurements, but the questions we ask, so that we may better understand the
human experience. The findings offered here, in both the answers and questions they present, are
one small step in this direction.
1
Brint (2001) describes the eight variables or properties of community relations,
identified by sociolgosists, as 1) dense and demanding social ties, 2) social attachments to and
involvements in institutions, 3) ritual occasions, and 4) small group size, 5) perceptions of
40
similarity with the physical characteristics, expressive style, way of life, or historical experience
of others; and 6) common beliefs in an idea system, a moral order, an institution, or a group.
2
Blee (2012) makes the distinction between those who ‘belong’, meaning individuals
who fit the identity of the group, from ‘members’, as not all who ‘belong’ are also necessarily
‘members’. The criteria for both belonging and membership are defined by those involved in the
organization or group.
3
A number of conceptualizations of ‘social mechanisms’ have developed over time.
Tilly’s understanding is distinct in its emphasis on the linking of mechanisms into social
processes, as well as its attentiveness to the embedded nature of mechanisms and processes. For
a comprehensive review of different conceptualizations of ‘social mechanisms’, see Hedstrom
and Ylikoski (2010). Neil Gross (2009) also offers a cogent review
4
Not all organizations provide or enable an experience of community, and not all
experiences of community occur within organizations. For example, Pole and Gray (2012) find
that many members of CSA organizations do not experience community as a result of
membership, nor was achieving a sense of community a reason for joining. In contrast, residents
of Buffalo Creek (Erikson 1979) lived in a state of ‘communality’ that meets the conditions for
community experience outlined at the start of this paper but are not part of any organization,
formal or otherwise.
5
For the importance of cognitive boundaries in the creation of community see Zerubavel
1997 (Social Mindscapes), in particular the idea of “thought communities” (p. 9). On symbolic
and moral boundaries see Lamont and Molnar 2002 and Lamont 1992, 2000
6
The content of the email was similar but not identical to an email linking
unsubstantiated scientific claims to Johns Hopkins University which has been in circulation since
41
approximately 2007. source: http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cancerupdate.asp (accessed
February 4, 2013)
7
The Gerson Therapy is a natural treatment used for a number of illnesses including
cancer. Solid foods, including organic yogurt, are permissible while following the Gerson
Therapy. For more information, see www.gerson.org
8
Campbell, Thom M. 2004. The China Study. Dallas, TX : BenBella Books
9
In her work on social movement groups, Blee (2012) notes that not all who belong are
members. She finds that when persons involved with an activist group disagree with the group’s
definition of ‘who we are’ and ‘what we’re doing here’- essentially, who belongs- and display
this divergence in action or through word, those who do belong (according to the present agreed
upon criteria) may respond negatively, or simply ignore the individual, creating opportunity for
tension and conflict to arise.
42
REFERENCES
Aldrich, Howard E. and Martin Ruef. 2006. Organizations Evolving. Sage Publications:
Thousand Oaks, CA.
Astley, W. Graham. 1985. “The Two Ecologies: Population and Community Perspectives on
Organizational Evolution.” Administrative Science Quarterly. 30: 224-241
Bellah, Robert, Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton.
1985. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Berkeley,
CA: University of California Press.
Blee, Kathleen. 2012. Democracy in the Making. Oxford University Press.
Bosveld, William, Willem Koomen, and Joop Vander-Pligt. 1994. “Selective Exposure and the
False Consensus Effect: The Availability of Similar and Dissimilar Others.” British
Journal of Social Psychology. 33:457-66
Brint, Steven. 2001. “Gemeinschaft Revisited: A Critique and Reconstruction of the Community
Concept.” Sociological Theory 19:1-23.
Brown-Saracino, Jaoponica. 2004. “Social Preservationists and the Quest for Authentic
Community.” City & Community. 3:135-156.
Brown, Cheryl and Stacy Miller. 2008. “The Impacts of Local Markets: A Review of Research
on Farmers Markets and Community Supported Agriculture.” American Journal of
Agricultural Economics. 90:1296-1302.
Calhoun, Craig. 1991. “Indirect Relationships and Imagined Communities: Large-Scale Social
Integration and the Transformation of Everyday Life” Pp.95-121 in Social Theory for a
43
Changing Society, edited by Pierre Bourdieu and James S. Coleman. Boulder, CO:
Westview
Calhoun, Craig. 1980. “Community: Toward a Variable Reconceptualization for Comparative
Research.” Social History. 5:105-29.
Choi, Kyoonsang and Bongsoon Cho. 2010. “Competing Hypotheses Analyses of the
Associations Between Group Task Conflict and Group Relationship Conflict.” Journal of
Organizational Behavior. 32:1106-1126.
Cohen, Jere M. 1977. “Sources of Peer Group Homogeneity” Sociology of Education. 50:227241.
Cooley, Jack, and D. A. Lass. 1998. “Consumer Benefits from Community Supported
Agriculture Membership.” Review of Agricultural Economics. 20:227-237.
Cummings, Jonathon N., Lee Sproull, and Sara B. Kiesler. 2002. “Beyond Hearing: Where RealWorld and Online Support Meet” Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice.
6:78-88.
Deutsch, Francine M. 1988. “When Friends Lead Us Astray: Evidence for the Selective
Exposure Hypothesis.” Journal of Social Psychology 128:271-73.
Donmoyer, R. 1990. “Generalizability and the Single Case Study.” In E. Eisner and A. Peshkin
(eds). Qualitative Inquiry in Education: The Continuing Debate. Pp. 175-99. NY:
Teachers College Press.
Erikson, Kai T. 1979. Everything In Its Path. Simon and Schuster. New York: NY
Etzioni, Amitai. 2001. “Is Bowling Together Sociologically Lite?” Contemporary Sociolog.
30:223-24.
44
Fine, Gary Alan. 1987. “Community and Boundary: Personal Experience Stories of Mushroom
Collectors”. Journal of Folklore Research. 24:223-240.
Firestone, W.A. 1993 “Alternative Arguments for Generalizing From Data as Applied to
Qualitative Research” Educational Researcher. 22:16-23.
Gross, Neil. 2009. “A Pragmatist Theory of Social Mechanisms.” American Sociological Review.
74:358-379.
Hedstrom, Peter and Petri Ylikoski. 2010. “Causal Mechanisms in the Social Sciences” Annual
Review of Sociology. 36:49-67.
Hillery, George A. 1955. “Definitions of Community: Areas of Agreement”. Rural Sociology.
20:111-123.
Hinrichs, C. Claire. 2000. “Embeddedness and local food systems: notes on two types of direct
agricultural market” Journal of Rural Studies 16:295-303.
Jehn, Karen A. 1995. “A Multimethod Examination of the Benefits and Detriments of Intragroup
Conflict.” Administrative Science Quarterly. 40:256-282.
Jehn, Karen A, and Elizabeth A. Mannix. 2001. “The Dynamic Nature of Conflict: A
Longitudinal Study of Intergroup Conflict and Group Performance.” Academy of
Management Journal. 44:238-251.
Jehn, Karen A. Gregory B. Northcraft and Margaret A. Neale. 1999. “Why Differences Make a
Difference: A Field Study of Diversity, Conflict, and Performance in Workgroups”
Administrative Science Quarterly. 44:741-763.
Jindra, Michael. 1994. “Star Trek Fandom as a Religious Phenomenon.” Sociology of Religion
55:27–51.
45
Jussim, Lee, and D. Wayne Osgood. 1989. “Influence and Similarity Among Friends: An
Integrative Model Applied to Incarcerated Adolescents.” Social Psychology Quarterly.
52:98-112.
Kandel, Denise B. 1978. “Homophily, Selection, and Socialization in Adolescent Friendships.”
American Journal of Sociology. 84:427-436.
_____. 1972. Commitment and Community: Communes and Utopias in Sociological Perspective.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
_____. 1977. Men and Women of the Corporation. NY: Basic Books.
Katz, J. 2001a. “From How to Why: Luminous Description and causal Inference in Ethnography,
Part 1.” Ethnography. 2:443-73.
_____ 2001b. “From How to Why: Luminous Description and causal Inference in Ethnography,
Part 2.” Ethnography. 3:63-90.
Keller, Suzanne. 2003. Community. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kitts, James A. 2003. “Egocentric Bias or Information Management? Selective Disclosure and
the Social Roots of Norm Misperception.” Social Psychology Quarterly. 66:222-37.
Lamont, Michele. 2000. The Dignity of Working Men. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
_____. 1992. Money, Morals, and Manners: The Culture of the French and the American UpperMiddle Class. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lamont, Michele, and Virag Molnar. 2002. “The Study of Boundaries in the Social Sciences.”
Annual Review of Sociology. 28:167-195.
Lass, Daniel, G.W. Stevenson, John Hendrickson, Kathy Ruhf. 2003a. CSA Across the Nation:
Findings from the 1999 CSA Survey. Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems, College
of Agricultural and Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
46
Lass, Daniel, Ashley Bevis, G.W. Stevenson, John Hendrickson, and Kathy Ruhf. 2003b.
Community Supported Agriculture Entering the 21st Century: Results from the 2001
National Survey. Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems, College of Agricultural and
Life Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Lawler, Edward J; Shane R. Thye, and Jeongkoo Yoon. 2000. “Emotion and Group Cohesion in
Productive Exchange” American Journal of Sociology. 3:616-657.
Lazarsfeld, Paul, and Robert K. Merton. 1954. “Friendship as Social Process: A Substantive and
Methodological Analysis.” Pp. 18-66 in Freedom and Control in Modern Society, edited
by M.Berger, T. Abel, and C.Page. New York: Octagon Books.
Marks, Gary, and Norman Miller. 1987. “Ten years of Research on the False-Consensus Effect:
An Empirical and Theoretical Review.” Psychological Bulletin. 102:72-90
McPherson, J. Miller, and Lynn Smith-Lovin. 1987. “Homophily in Voluntary Organizations:
Status Distance and the Composition of Face-to-Face Groups.” American Sociological
Review. 52:370-379.
McPherson, J. Miller, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James M. Cook. 2001. “Birds of a Feather:
Homophily in Social Networks.” Annual Review of Sociology. 27:415-44.
Mitchell, J.C. 1983. “Case and Situation Analysis,” Sociological Review. 31:187-211.
O’Mahony, Siobhán and Karim R. Lakhani. 2011.“Organizations in the Shadow of
Communities” Research in the Sociology of Organizations 33: 3-36
Pole, Antoinette and Margaret Gray. 2012. “Farming alone? What’s up with the “C” in
community supported agriculture?” Agricultureand Human Values. 30:85-100.
Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community
New York: Simon and Schuster.
47
Ritzer, George and Jurgenson, Nathan. 2010. “Production, Consumption, Prosumption: The
nature of capitalism in the age of the digital ‘prosumer’” Journal of Consume Culture.
10:13-37.
Ross, Lee, David Greene, and Pamela House. 1977. “The False Consensus Effect: An egocentric
bias in social perception and attribution processes.” Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology. 13:279-301.
Rothschild, Joyce and J. Allen Whitt. 1986. The Cooperative Workplace. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Reuf, Martin, Howard E. Aldrich, and Nancy M. Carter. 2003. “The Structure of Founding
Teams: Homophily, Strong Ties, and Isolation Among U.S. Entrepreneurs.” American
Sociological Review. 68:195-222.
Schnell, Steven M. 2007. “Food With a Farmer’s Face: Community-Supported Agriculture in the
United States.” The Geographical Review. 97:530-564.
Selznick, Philip. 1992. The Moral Commonwealth. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Small, Mario Lewis. 2009. “How Many Case Studies Do I need? On Science and the logic of
case selection in field-based research.” Ethnography. 10:5-38.
Seidel, Marc-David L., and Katherine J. Stewart. 2011. “An Initial Description of the C-Form”.
“Organizations in the Shadow of Communities” Research in the Sociology of
Organizations 33:37-72.
Stroope, Samuel. 2011. “How culture shapes community: bible belief, theological unity, and a
sense of belonging in religious congregations” The Sociological Quarterly. 52:568-592.
Thornton, Patricia H., William Ocasio, and Michael Lounsbury. 2012. The Institutional Logics
Perspective. NY, NY: Oxford University Press.
48
Thomas, W.I., and Dorothy Swaine Thomas. 1928. The Child in America: Behavior Problems
and Programs. NY, NY: Knopf.
Thompson, James D. 1967. Organizations in Action. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
Publishers.
Tilly, Charles. 2001. “Mechanisms in Political Process.” Annual Review of Political Science.
4:21-41.
Tönnies, Ferdinand. 2001. Community and Civil Society. West Nyack, NY:Cambridge
University Press.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2009. 2007 Census of
Agriculture. Washington, D.C.
Vaisey, Stephen. 2007. “Structure, Culture, and Community: The Search for Belonging in 50
Urban Communes.” American Sociological Review. 72:851-873.
Wilkins, Alan L. and William G. Ouchi. 1983. “Efficient Cultures: Exploring the Relationship
between Culture and Organizational Performance.” Administrative Science Quarterly.
28:468-481.
Zerubavel, Eviatar. 1997. Social Mindscapes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
49