Starting the Vision Statement: What is Non-Negotiable?

When creating a vision or mission statement for the community you want to form, how specific should you get?

I've been debating this (rather than discussing it, I'm afraid) with my partner Iuval. He and his friend Chris plan to buy land and cofound an intentional community.

Iuval and Chris have been talking for 3 years or so, to lay out the core values they have in common, which they want to practice through their intentional community. I can imagine examples of core values might be pacifism or non-violence, deep communication, the lightest ecological footprint possible, spiritual interconnection and social/economic justice (my list).

They've received the advice, wise, I believe, to sit down and ask themselves what in their vision is non-negotiable. Where we differ is that I believe a core value can be non-negotiable, but how you practice it should be left to the individual or consensed upon by the group, perpetually subject to updating and renegotiation.

On an informational website, Chris compares the process of the two of them deciding details of the future community to the birth of the US Constitution, by landed white men. Chris points out that you don't have to have participated in the writing of the Constitution to buy into it or be protected by it. But, I would counter, those landed white men made sure we could amend, rewrite, burn it and start over if we want. Just like in screenwriting, no draft is ever final.

Iuval and Chris have asked themselves, naturally, how their vision/core values might play out and what that might look like in an intentional community–taking words that could mean anything and turning them into specific actions or agreements.

Then these expected actions or agreements become their vision and this starts to feel tricky to me. If your core value is a light footprint, for example, you might form goals that realize this value–to consume less, to share more, cooperate on resources, to create culture that demands less from the planet and the marketplace–have a drum circle instead of a movie night; put on a talent show instead of watching tv; meditate instead of shopping, whatever comes to mind. Maybe eating less or no meat…You'd live in the smallest house that makes sense for you. You might share it with others. You'd work from home, only enough to meet your basic needs and security and then maybe you'd volunteer or work a community garden. You might shower less and bicycle more (although you might need a shower after a good ride…) Your choices for realizing this core value are almost endless and all are gravely important to consider.

I wonder if the founders of a community, however expansive of heart and true of mission they may be, might go too far in dictating which strategies their community will require as “non-negotiable,” cutting future members out of the consensus process.

One would think that getting very specific would be beneficial, so there are no surprises later. But where's the line between insuring success and doing others' thinking for them because you fear they may veer off your preferred course?

I've heard Iuval and Chris plan that everyone, they mean everyone, in their community will live in a large group house (100 people plus), in which individuals may have a private room. Chris would insist that everyone live 2 or more to a room. Although I agree  this is a great way to save energy and can be fun if you have the right roommate (grin grin), even summer camp is over after two weeks. At 43, I don't know how long I would think that was fun. I am very aware that much of the world lives this way. But I am concerned that many, not all, Americans want a bit more space, or at least more privacy for the long term. Why not allow for choice, as Heathcote Community does, having group houses and individual dwellings?

Iuval and Chris are excited  to create freedom for their community members, which for Iuval and Chris means freedom of time–getting out of the “slavery” of the work week, in which we work to support our over consumption, which doesn't make us happy anyway. In their writings, the word slavery is used in reference to the Western/First World citizen who's caught up in this spiritually empty cycle, as well as the Third World worker who may be suffering in a sweatshop or in classic bondage creating the running shoes, cellphones, or whatever, which we buy, pretending or trying not to know from where they came.

As a fair trade retailer myself, I'm on a mission to help people choose simplicity, having fewer things but nicer (more ethical) things, and to help people break the cycle of seeking fulfillment through stuff. But I am also a white person from the South whose family owned slaves just a few generations ago. I think it distorts the historical memory of slavery in this country to use that word lightly. Some Third World people in this modern chain are in fact slaves, held against their will and subject to cruelty and violence. For that reason we should demand to know where our products come from and learn to go without when the answer is slavery. But I would not apply the word to First Worlders who simply work hard at jobs they don't like to have lots of stuff that doesn't make them happy. Perhaps we could call them “saps…”

So Iuval and Chris are designing their community to aim for a two-day work week, which would cover “bread labor,” or food, shelter and clothing. They want to FREE up community members' time for pursuing their bliss–art, music, science, etc. And to get out of the Global Economy which is fueled by slavery, they want to have all raw materials created within the community or within the local economy. Great! But I wonder if this design point, the two-day work week, is too specific. What other options might the larger group come up with as the hundred people for the group house start to arrive? It feels to me like a personal goal projected onto others. My own instinct for how I want to acheive the same core value is to become a vigilant and minimalist consumer.

So here are my survey questions to you, pod members:

Where's the line in creating the vision for the community you want to form?

How specific is helpful?

When, if ever, does it become controlling and/or distrustful of the future group?

How much say about vision/core values does a new member coming in need to have in order to feel invested?

I'd love to hear thoughts from long time communitarians as well as seekers!

Wren

Re: Starting the Vision Statement: What is Non-Negotiable?

Just like the US constitution, our constitution (which we haven't finalized yet), will be amendable. But unlike the USC it would need a consensus to amend. So in that sense everything is negotiable, but since Chris and I are not interested in negotiating the core values and goals right now, it is effectively non-negotiable (we've been joking that this would offer an incentive for others to kill us or kick us out). We are willing to discuss and explain, just not change at this point.

Besides core values, we have goals that are non-negotiable. This might seem unusual if the main goal of your community is for people to live close together and share meals and land (as well as core values). We have other goals besides those and we believe that quantifying those goals makes them less vague, and allows us to monitor how well we are doing in achieving them. This is standard practice in science and business (and other areas such as public service and the military): quantify, measure and adjust to meet targets. If goals are vague and subjective, it is harder to see how well one is doing, and it is easy to not get much done and just continue the status quo. Of course there are dangers in relying TOO MUCH on numbers when it comes to human affairs. Vagueness and subjectivity do have their place. It is not a good idea to quantify love or kindness or joy. It is not a good idea to impose goals on others, and if people don't see the value in achieving a goal, they will cheat whether it is numerical or not (we just watched The TRAP, a BBC documentary with one section about how public servants in the UK cheated to meet ridiculous targets). With all these caveats, I still think that having numbers for some of our goals is a good idea. If we can't meet our 2 day bread labor/week target or our $400/year communal expenses, we will have to see where we can simplify or increase efficiency. Right now Chris and I are having disagreement about whether we should start as simple as possible or allow for some fat–I say no grid electricity, no power tools (except for initial clearing and building) and no single family residences. Chris says yes to all but the third of these. I say once we meet our targets, we can add more fat. Chris says we can reduce the fat if we don't meet our targets. It will be some sort of give and take in the end–but without the numbers to guide us, it would be harder to get things done. Reaching consensus is only half the story–getting hard things done is the other half. I claim that most communities only deal with the first half.

All that said, it sure would be nice to have more people participating in strategic planning. Though our goals are precise, there are many strategies to get there and Dana, you are right that some people want to have more say in how things get done. But if the goals are vague (or if there are no goals except living the core values), some people might think the goals are being achieved, others might think they are not. Drastic changes from the status quo are more likely to happen with quantifiable (objective) goals. Otherwise one can (in my opinion) delude oneself in thinking that one is “green” by driving a Prius or building a $0.5 million house that houses less than 10 people. You can disagree about that, but it is harder to disagree on numbers (if one honestly measures, and the measurements are repeatable by many people).

On the other hand, I just want everyone to have everything they want.

On the third hand, I think most people are too hypnotized by this culture to have what it takes (scholarship, critical thinking, ability to sacrifice, low ego) to understand how to change things–call me an elitist and I won't argue. I would gladly let someone else draft a constitution or help Chris and me, but noone is stepping up to the plate whom I think is qualified–Amadon, Chris Hooley, Christina (and sadly, Chris and I are not up to the task either, but it's the best we got). Perhaps none of these people has everything it takes, and all of us together would produce something much better than any of us alone.

On the 4th hand, I want everyone who cares to, to feel like they truly are co-creators of a grand, beautiful vision.

On the 5th hand (hi Shiva), the time for drafting constitutions is over. It is time to plant, play music, make films and dance.