Toward Radical Accessibility in the Intentional Communities Movement

By Anthony Beck- aka Telos

“Do you live in a community?” This is a question I hear people ask often, and Ed Whitfield, our keynote speaker at this year’s Twin Oaks Communities Conference, was asked it often enough that he finally answered it for the entire room: like most people, Ed does live in a community, although he does not live in an intentional community. Since I heard him say this, I’ve kept a special awareness of the fact that intentional communities are far from the only kind of community. I’m thankful for this fact, because as much as I appreciate intentional communities (and live in them), they make a poor monolith.

One of the hard truths of intentional community is that it isn’t as diverse, inclusive, and accessible as many of us might think or hope. While we may be egalitarian on paper, while we do not explicitly discriminate on the basis of race, class, gender, or age, we live in a society that does, and that societal current should not be underestimated. Despite our egalitarian aspirations, it’s not hard to see that membership in intentional communities tends toward being middle class, white, and able-bodied, this author included.

In subtle (and sometimes overt) ways, intentional communities can reproduce some of the patterns of racism, classism, ableism, etc, that exist in society at large. For example, because whiteness is the established norm of many intentional communities, they are not culturally accessible to some people, especially people of color. People that don’t fit that existing (predominantly white) culture are too often left with only three choices: assimilate, take on the hard work of shifting the cultural inertia, or choose not to participate. It shouldn’t be surprising how often they choose the third option, leaving demographics and the culture that has been limiting them unchanged. While culture is complex, the fact that one commune in the Federation of Egalitarian Communities requires its members hold US citizenship is a simple and straightforward form of exclusion. In terms of class, intentional communities can unwittingly exclude working and poor people by requiring that applicants visit for a period of three weeks or longer. Those unable to take three weeks away from work often cannot visit in the first place, and their membership process ends there. As members, those without assets also face more risk if they choose to leave the commune. Because members of FEC communities don’t build personal equity, those that join without savings often must leave without them. Finally, communes in the Federation of Egalitarian Communities are also regularly critiqued as ableist, because they require a set number of working hours or have a culture of work that is just too much for some people. Even among those already living in intentional community, I regularly witness frustration with some of these alienating dynamics, and some people leave because of them. Though intentional community may be considered an improvement over conventional society in many ways, we still have a long way to go.

 

Framed_Patrician_full

To be clear, I’m not performing this roast of my own movement in order to be discouraging. Quite the opposite: I’m doing so because I have high expectations of it, and I’m issuing a call for us to rise to this challenge. As a communard, I’m here to create a viable alternative to capitalism and the exploitation implicit in it. I’m here to create something that is inclusive, accessible, and supportive in ways that capitalism is not, that creates a real sense of communion in ways that capitalism does not. Yet we still have lots of work to do before achieving this, and we cannot move forward without putting honest eyes on where we fall short and correcting accordingly. The intentional communities movement has been largely white, middle class and able-bodied since it took off in the 60’s, and this legacy continues. We will not outgrow it without effort. I know that plenty of others in communes and other types of intentional communities share my utopian intentions, but while intention is an important starting point, it is only a starting point. We are going to have to work hard to make good on those noble intentions.

Unfortunately, one of the dangers of intentional communities is that they risk losing sight of the wider world and its needs as they attempt to create a utopian microcosm. As we strive to create a good life for our members, we can too easily forget to consider who is outside our membership and why. Even when we do recognize that our membership is skewed in the white and middle-class direction, that fact is too often written off as unfortunate, but outside of our control, and we miss an opportunity to explore the role we’ve played in creating that reality. That missed opportunity is a huge loss for our cause. To pass it by is to forfeit our power to learn, grow, and build wider solidarity. Especially at this moment when oppressed people are experiencing an increase in open hostility, some of the most important work in front of the intentional communities movement is removing all barriers to solidarity with those who need it.

black_american_artist

How can we do a better job of showing up for the disenfranchised and making intentional communities more accessible to them? First and foremost, we must listen, and then we must follow up on that listening by proactively changing. We must be willing to listen to those marginalized voices we are most likely to exclude, so that we can understand what their needs are, and how those needs are and aren’t being met. We must also compassionately hold space for those intense emotions (such as frustration) that sometimes arise in our communities, and seek to hear their wisdom. Difficult emotions are typically indicators of unmet needs, and we can use them as tools to identify the unhealthy parts of a community’s culture: the areas in which we most need to grow. We’re not likely to catch all our shortcomings in one round of receptive listening, so we must do it continuously, until it becomes second nature. Through listening attentively, we must recognize those aspects of our practices and culture that act as barriers or drive people away, and then we must proactively dismantle what is not serving us. This cycle of listening and acting is the most fundamental process that we must embrace as a movement.

Some action is already underway to remove barriers to membership in FEC communes. Exit funds for leaving members and more flexible membership processes are among such endeavors, but perhaps the most complicated conversation related to accessibility is about racial and cultural inclusivity. This conversation is potentially very slow, personal, and uncomfortable, and it will certainly involve a lot of reflection, on both the individual and community level.  Because it’s a difficult conversation, some might prefer to not have it, but it’s extremely important that we not only make time for it, but make it an ongoing priority. We must listen, withhold judgment, patiently sit with any discomfort that arises, change ourselves, and repeat. Unless we are comfortable with the current demographics of intentional communities (and I’m not), this is work we must commit to continuously.

In the meantime, there are ways to make intentional communities more accessible in the near term. One idea favored by several people of color I’ve shared community with is to prioritize the creation of new communes that are intended as spaces for people of color, where members do not have to do constant work to assimilate or overcome an established culture of whiteness. This is an idea I definitely support, because it would immediately create better space for people of color in the intentional communities movement without requiring that existing communes change all at once. Another strategy I’ve discussed is for intentional communities to adopt policies that require their membership to reflect the racial and ethnic demographics of the surrounding community as closely as possible. Comparable policies that ensure balanced age and gender distributions already exist at some communes. It’s time we consider making a  codified commitment to cultural balance as well (without tokenizing people).

Besides making intentional communities more accessible for those that wish to live in them, we must also learn to make ourselves and our resources more accessible to those that do not wish to live in intentional community. The movement for a better world is a lot bigger than intentional communities, and we have a lot of resources besides membership in our communes that we might offer that greater struggle. Let’s act in solidarity without holding hopes of recruitment. Let’s offer space, food, connections, knowledge, etc. to those doing good work whenever we can.

03-1

When we ignore the need to make our work and our resources accessible to the disenfranchised, we are performing a disservice, not only to the world, but also to ourselves. The most experienced egalitarians out there are among the oppressed: the ones who share out of necessity, not simply choice. As long as our work is not accessible to them, we’re missing out on the opportunity to work with them, and it’s possible that the people who should be leading our movement aren’t even at the table. Without them, our movement is not as effective as it could be, and our communities lack the richness they could have.

Despite (and because of) the difficulty and depth of this work toward more radical accessibility, I cannot emphasize enough how important it is for us to prioritize it if we want to be in the business of creating a better world. It may involve the creation of some policies, but moreso it will involve building relationships and reevaluating priorities. It will require thinking of marginalized people not just as metrics, but as people we are curious about and excited to work with. To use a quote that’s now so widely spread that I’m unable to attribute it, “If it’s inaccessible to the poor, it is neither radical nor revolutionary.” Since I know plenty of communards (myself often included) who have some attachment to being radical and/or revolutionary, making our work accessible must be our top priority. We are too often only supportive of this work when it is convenient, or if someone else is doing it, but marginalized people constantly confront issues of accessibility, by necessity, not choice. In the spirit of egalitarianism, we too must make this work an essential and mandatory part of what we do.  

Advertisements
Toward Radical Accessibility in the Intentional Communities Movement

None Dare Call It Tokenism

By Courtney Dowe

What is the difference between tokenism and diversity?

I don’t fucking know.

Wait. Did you think that just because I have access to a computer and the ability to type that I would be able to quickly clear that little question up for you? *tsk tsk*

I’m just asking.

For many, diversity and tokenism are impossible to distinguish from one another, but the seemingly subtle difference between them is the difference between genuine progress and a new version of the same old bullshit.
Token1
The Urban Dictionary does not have a definition for tokenism, but it does have a definition for Token Negro: “A Black person whose interests and actions are profoundly non-threatening to whites…” This definition is helpful as I recall the countless times I’ve been compelled to say “that which should not be said” in the presence of Whites. Since any word or statement that could potentially make White folks uncomfortable is “that which should not be said”, the stakes are perpetually high when whether or not I speak up from moment to moment can easily determine whether or not I am contributing to my own tokenism.
In my research on the subject (today), I came across an outstanding article by Lauren Lyons entitled “The Curious Conundrum Of The Code-Switching Token Teacher”. Yes, that title is everything and yes, you do need to stop reading this and go read something by another Black woman right now.  Don’t worry, I’ll be here when you get back.
* * * *

Impressive, right?

She basically conveyed the essence of what I am getting at with all of this, so I will just leave you with one more thought.

A real commitment to diversity must include, not only a willingness to be uncomfortable, but a recognition of the need to be. Discomfort should be seen as a positive indicator that the work of cross-cultural understanding may actually be taking place. Otherwise, tokenism will continue to be a much more likely outcome than diversity, whenever those with real differences attempt to come together in spite of them.

Token2

—Courtney Dowe lives at the Compersia community in Washington, DC.

 

 

 

 

None Dare Call It Tokenism

A Diversity of Communities

by Raven

Last week, we published a piece on two income sharing systems called “Allowance Versus Box of Money” (which I’ve also heard called Dual and Unitary income sharing systems). Although I thought it was a really interesting article, I had a couple of difficulties with it.

One was that it seemed to claim that all income sharing came in “in two broad flavors”. I know of a couple of communities in dialogue in the FEC (the Possibility Alliance/Stillwater Sanctuary and Rainforest Lab) that are exploring using a gift economy exchange system, which involves neither an allowance or a box of money. The article also suggested that the box of money approach was the “more radical solution”. As someone who helped create an income sharing community, I found the allowance method an elegant solution to what we were trying to achieve. Instead of trying to figure out which is the ‘more radical’ approach, I think that it’s useful to know that there are at least three different ways to share income–probably more. (I heard someone talk about ‘punk income sharing’ where it’s not hard to share income if there isn’t any to share.)

Diverse1

I think one of the main reasons for creating new communes, is (as I also heard someone say) to create ‘new flavors’ of communal living. This is why there are five different income sharing communities in Louisa County, VA.

I think it’s important that there are many options for income sharing, that some communes are high structure (say Twin Oaks) and some communes are low Diverse3structure (say Acorn), that there are communities that approach a middle class lifestyle and communities (like Living Energy Farm and the Stillwater Sanctuary) that are already preparing for life beyond fossil fuels. I’ve heard some folks talking recently about communities of people of color. I’m not threatened by this, any more than I’m threatened by women’s communities. And as much as I’m an advocate for egalitarian, income sharing communities, I’m well aware and even happy that this is only a small percentage of all the communities out there–there are co-operative houses, cohousing communities, ecovillages, hybrid communities of all kinds, and many varieties of spiritual communities, to name the most common ones in the Communities Directory.

Again, we’re creating more options for people, not less. And I’m well aware that not everyone wants to live in community. The point is that I think there should be all kinds of communities (and particularly income sharing communities) for those that are looking for them, because different people will do better in different communities, just like the ‘box of money’ approach will work better for some communities, and the ‘allowance’ approach for others, and using a ‘gift economy’ for still others.

As David from las Indias said, in an article on diversity that we published a year ago, “The kind of diversity many of you are concerned about … will come by itself, but probably not to every community, but to the network we must build together.” While diversity within communities is important, I think diversity among communities is crucial.

Diverse2

 

 

A Diversity of Communities