Pondering...

[novapsyche]

A month or two ago, I was having a healthy debate with F about the ideal characteristics of an intentional community. As I am ethically completely opposed to violence in all forms, in my version of the ideal IC, there would be no allowance for even self-defense. However, I recognized this left open the worst of possibilities: "What if there came a serial killer, and began killing all the inhabitants?" I asked. (In this scenario, for some reason, we'd ruled out the usefulness of a prison to a utopian area.)

I think F tried to offer some suggestions, but none satisfied me. According to my own ethics, my best idea that reflects peace would be vulnerable to the person who killed without remorse. The offender could go throughout the entire complex, cutting down community members one by one, and the members would be able to do nothing.

Well, this also presupposes the abolishment of any sort of punishment system. In the most ideal world, law would not have to exist. I sincerely believe this. But there are other systems of punishment, all the way down to simple traditions of ostracism and expulsion in early societies. I would not advocate the use of ostracism at all in terms of punishment (because emotional hurt and humiliation serve to encase a person even more inside his or her own ego, the "individual" self that draws a sharp distinction between self and other).

I would, however, support the punishment of expulsion, one that would be determined by the community for what it considers the most serious transgression of its values.

Now, expulsion is possible only if an external community, or "the world" as it is referred to in many religious texts, exists. Only if there is an area where the utopia does not extend can this punishment have any meaning. It is critical to recognize that, in order for social experiments to originate and grow, an outer/background society is still necessary. People need to be able to reflect upon what each area (the utopian and the worldly) offers in terms of quality of life, values, and countless other attributes.

Now, the issue of a completely self-sufficient utopian experiment that wants to have a lawless system--I have no answers for that one. Except, perhaps, rigidly small communities (7 people at most in a household). Large communities have the highest odds of internal collapse.

Comments

[sulphuroxide.livejournal.com]

you ought to read up on the lit about all those hippie communs. if youre serious. wonder how those worked out.

[rubel.livejournal.com]

I sort of subscribe to the "greatest depth for the greatest span" idea of Ken Wilber's. The idea is that violence is a last resort sort of thing, but that it must be used in certain cases. Otherwise, you propogate the very qualities in the rest of the world that you have deemed it necessary to transcend by encouraging (through inaction) the violence of others to flourish. If you lay down to people trying to kill you and all your fellows, this helps no one and harms a great many, not just you and your community, but all those who that community could help. Yes, the individual self is not very important, must be transcended, should not be the biggest factor in things. But that doesn't just go for you, that goes for the killers also. Why value your own individual self LESS than theirs? Their soul does not die if you kill them, you can do no more harm than they can do to you on an individual basis. However, if you want to help the rest of the world to transcend their individual selves, you're not doing anyone a favor by letting the violent have their way. And sometimes the only way to stop them is through violence, I'm sorry to say.

[evilowen.livejournal.com]

I suppose, hypothetically, that all members of said commune would have to have faith that a violent individual would not ever be placed in their midst, but this isn't realistic. I suppose the Christian notion of "turning the other cheek" would be put to the ultimate test here: die honorably, or live to carry out whatever purpose you were meant to fulfill. I guess all members would have to decide individually whether their fate was to be murdered and honored, or to defend and be shunned.
When I was still in school I specialized in violent artwork. By studying violence in general and it's root causes, I gained the ability to APPEAR violent, but never had to back it up. I have yet to get in a situation where violence couldn't be avoided (on my part), including the time I had 3 large thugs attempting to jump me in the middle of the road. My implied threats meant nothing (though I would have backed them up if there was no other way out of it), but I quickly developed an on the spot theory that I figured would be more effective. I stood my ground and let them know I did not fear being beaten to a pulp, and I was not going to fight back. No matter what. A thug doesn't UNDERSTAND this way of thinking. His immediate reaction is to revert to name calling, and anger. But fear becomes visibly noticable, by recognizing that he's in a situation that he can't comprehend. In the end, I had to block a few punches and kicks, but they did leave me alone.
I wouldn't expect this to work in every situation, but I think that you would ALWAYS be given a split second to choose between violence and resolution, and you would have to rely on your own basic character to see you through. In your hypothetical commune, try to place yourself behind the eyes of a Killer. Imagine you have just killed a few of the people, and now imagine the rest of the people lining up, dropping to their knees, and waiting to be slaughtered. You now have 2 ways out. Get angry at these people for putting you in this position, and carry on with the bloodlust, or state out loud "You people are crazy!" and take off, knowing in your own mind that you have given these people a valid reason for your retreat, and in your own mind, you wouldn't be losing face.