One topic I’m interested in exploring is related both to economics and the mechanics of joining and leaving. I call it “virtual community”. By “virtual community” I mean the tight bonds that form and are maintained in a society where people move around a lot. These bonds can be emotional, project-oriented, mutually supporting or economic.

Twin Oaks predicates itself on all members being on the farm all the time. This has shifted slightly with PAL, VE changes, TOAST, long-term guesting and a handful of members who are willing to risk strong disapproval from some people. But, the assumption remains and alternatives are fraught. In part, this is justified by much of the work being land-based or manufacturing. It’s also justified by arguing that personal relationships suffer when members are not in proximity.

One response to the last argument is that Twin Oaks has no community-wide or community-endorsed mode of strengthening and supporting personal relationships. Perhaps, putting an emphasis on relationships would alleviate the concern that the communal culture suffers when members come and go. If members were having high-quality personal interactions when together, separations might be less meaningful.

The economic argument seems easier to dismiss: there are lots of ways of making a buck while traveling or through information technology. Also, the flip is that no one reckons the economic loss caused by rigid home requirements. One line of reasoning at Twin Oaks has been that allowing members to build equity or accumulate assets (and in some cases, skills or education) would only empower them to leave and take resources from the community. This combines with the political resentment towards incentive based motivation. Not only are community members kept in a state of poverty, but the community itself, while financially solid, is stuck in extremely slow growth.

I welcome a personal ethic of voluntary poverty but wish to invite a wealth of opportunities for personal accomplishment and the successful incubation of projects. I do not subscribe to the notion that a community needs to be a self-contained world separate from the “mainstream” world. In fact, I am opposed to it. I am not interested in altering human nature in a hermetic environment. Rather, I would follow Peter Maurin’s notion of building a world where it is easier for people to do good.

One fantasy (or more like a thought experiment) I have had about Twin Oaks is to imagine it had purchased in its early years several hundred acres nearby for an eco-village. I can hear right away the arguments against this. That members would rather live there. It would make it too easy for people to leave. They would compete- one would overshadow the other. They would steal toilet paper from each other.

My argument is that the availability of that option would have been successful at catching some members for whom the full Twin Oaks experience wasn’t satisfying. Members leaving because of conflict, broken relationships, to pursue more nuclear arrangements, etc. The Rob Jones circle around Charlottesville comes to mind. What if instead of 2% of members staying twenty years at Twin Oaks and another 1-5% staying in the area, a small upward tick. Say 10% had stayed in the area living in some form of community or eco-village structure. The economic gain for Twin Oaks in collective wisdom, resource and skill retention and sharing, and maintenance of strong personal connections would be considerable. In addition the possibilities set in motion by increased critical mass. It would be of transcendent value in terms of barn-building, culture creation and psychological nurturance.

I mention this rather nutty thought experiment as a concrete example of the benefits of more permeable barriers. Twin Oaks has invested a great deal in having more impermeable barriers. I am wondering what levels of “permeability” and “virtual community” people can imagine that would enhance the experience of local community?
What do they think would work? How bound to place do we have to be? What are the trade-offs? The resentments that will form? Does that eliminate sustainability and food raising? Can those problems be solved?

For me, this is complicated by an assumption of some level of personal voluntary poverty, lowered consumption practices, and environmental consciousness. Also, I do think you start a community to some degree by having a house where people can live.

But, just buying a house, that’s another post.
-Thomas

(bucket says:)

Kim Stanley Robinson talks about a system like this in hisMars Trilogy. In his futuristic world, cooperatives are the norm, rather than corporations. It is yet another communistic utopian sci-fi novel and I higly reccomend it.

I appreciate this model, and can see many of the benefits to a system like this.

I would be interested in seeing how a model like this would look fleshed out.

Perhaps it begins with one house, and a work expectation that required it's members to work an average fo 2 years over a three year period, focusing on high efficiency and return on that work.

Over time other houses are purchased in other locations, allowing coop members to move and travel over the life of their membership.

As a member of the cooperative all food, clothing, shelter and medical care are taken care of no matter where you are located. Each house has a certian level of autonomy but also has the expectation of putting up members of the coop that come through.

Group purchasing power is used where possible, as the group grows.

(end bucket)