Communities in Utopia

It was a fairly strong and complex statement when I wrote that:

"The many liberal democracies around the world today, may not seem to be real communities, but they may be a collection of transient communities that persists over a framework that is the most sustaining community-making framework in human history."

What is a liberal democracy? And what is a community-making framework? To answer these questions, we need to make clear the definition for the terms, liberal, democracy, and framework. We will also look into the community-making process in more detail.

The traditional definition of liberalism : "Liberalism is an ideology, or current of political thought, which strives to maximize individual liberty through rights under law. Liberalism seeks a society characterized by free action within a defined framework. This framework is generally seen to include a pluralistic liberal democratic system of government, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, and economic competition."

And the definition for Liberal democracy: "Liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy where the ability of elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law and moderated by a constitution which emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals and minorities (also called constitutional democracy and constitutional liberalism), and which places constraints on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised."

According to wikipedia: "In software development, a framework is a defined support structure in which another software project can be organized and developed." And this definition works for our purpose as well, if we replace the words "software" with "community", and "another software project" with "community formation". In other words, "In community development, a framework is a defined support structure in which community formation can be organized and developed."

Here, we will see the importance of individual freedom in a liberal democracy as the essense in a community-making framework. Without individual freedom, the potential for community formation diminishes dramatically.

Secondly, the rule of law that protects the rights and freedoms of individuals is another essential aspect of any community-making framework. Without a consistent, consensual foundation, such as a constitution, chaos will eventually re-surface. A stable framework of judicial review of constitutional changes also helps to reduce any future chaos.

Finally, the importance of protecting the freedoms of minorities cannot be over-emphasized because any injustice inflicted on any individual, increases the potential for harm on any other individual in the community. It is how a community cares for its most vulnerable that reveals its deepest character.

We return full-circle to our discussion of utopia, and see the solution in liberal democracy as a sustainable framework for continuous community formation. The question for the future is the detailed implementation of the different forms of liberal democratic frameworks. Now that we know the direction towards utopia, how do we get to there, from here?

When does a Community lose its Way?

There are obstacles that keep a group from becoming a community. These are the same obstacles that trip up a community, and change it, so that it loses the spirit of a community, and revert back to becoming a group.

These obstacles are the ones that obstruct communication, between individuals within the community, and between the community and others, either individually, or collectively.

Exclusivity is the commonest obstacle a community has to face, because it is the first one that the identity of the community. Either it adapts and evolves by including new members, or it excludes them and maintain the status quo. Neither decision is easy, and both requires consideration work if the community is to remain one. Otherwise, it will either revert back to pseudo-community where everyone struggles to be the average standard to remain in community, not rocking the boat, not sticking out, not causing waves, not giving cause to be excluded, or the community will revert back to chaos, where the new members, or the act of including the new members, will cause divisions and confrontations, until a new consensus is achieved. In the worst case scenerio, when all the members are too stubborn or too proud, or when the group dynamics trapped the members in a path of irreversible division, then the community will cease to exist, and lose its way.

Withdrawal is the other common obstacle that every member in any community must face everyday. Participation in any group, especially in a community, is hard work. It is alway easy and tempting to withdraw, to give up, and leave the group, leave the community. Sometimes, that may be the wisest choice. Sometimes, that may be the worst decision one can make. It is not an easy decision. Just like a community must agonize over any decision to exclude any member from its embrace, any member who considers leaving a community must also agonize over the decision to withdraw. Without commitment and loyalty, no community can survive the hard times in chaos. But the commitment and loyalty must be voluntary and consciously given by each and every individual, not demanded nor enforced, nor coerced.

To bully its members into submission, into commitment, into loyalty, is the other common obstacle that afflicts every group close to achieving community. Just like every member in a community must go through the stage of Emptiness, so too must the group as a whole, as a collective, must empty itself of pride and self-interest, to allow each individual to make its own decision.

Fortunately, in spite of all the obstacles, there have been many successful communities in human history, and some that have endured beyond a human generation. The early Christian churches, for example, were true communities. The early communist countries, during their struggle against a common foe, were often communities of safe refuge. The many liberal democracies around the world today, may not seem to be real communities, but they may be a collection of transient communities that persists over a framework that is the most sustaining community-making framework in human history. Only time will tell.

What is a Community?

In his book, "Different Drum", M. Scott Peck asked the same question and offered many possible answers. The one I like best is his metaphor of it being like a gem, with multi-faceted properties, that it originates, like a gem, as stone in the ground, full of potentials. Like a gem shining in its multi-faceted glory only after long and hard work, of prospecting, of digging and excavating, of cleaning and polishing, of cutting and more polishing, so too, is the work of creating community. It begins as a group of people, then with a lot of work to establishing communication, to create common bonds, to find compromises, to give up agenda, to yield ego to feelings, to learn acceptance, to create an atmosphere of inclusivity, and to embrace diversity, before a group emerges as a community.

He used the example of his own marriage, with his wife, in a community of two, to illustrate the long process of learning accepting each other's differences as gifts that strengthens the union, not as differences that divides. The hostility and divisiveness we experience when we encounter people with different background, different opinions, different attitudes, are the result of our own attitudes, of judging others, of trying to change and convert them to our own ways, our own opinions, our own frames of reference. In a community, people are accepted unconditionally as they are, without judgment, without provisions to change. Instead, each person's unique and distinctive differences from the norm become a part of the whole, and the whole is greater for it.

One of the great enemies of community building is exclusivity. M. Scott Peck said in his book that the burden of proof is for those who wish to exclude, and ask, "Why should this person be excluded from us?" Not to ask why we should include someone. Just like freedom, membership in a community belongs to those who wish it. And exclusivity can be imposed not only by others upon others, but also by ourselves upon the self. Those who withdraw from community, for whatever reason, is giving up, is excluding him or her self, from the joy of community.

I have always felt uncomfortable in cliques of any kind, whether in high school, or in office politics. It never occured to me until now, understanding community, after having read the book many years ago, and for the first time, reflecting on it. Cliques are exclusive by definition, and an enemy of community. As Peck said in the book, when a community has enemies, it begins to lose its spirit. A community is peaceful.

It is the nature of my fractal reflections that allows me to explore the occasional new territory and feel the benefit of a cathartic experience when the walls within come tumbling down, healing old wounds, and opening up new vistas.

When Christ told the disciples that whenever two or three of them gathered together, there he would be. I see that as a promise of community, provided they follow his commandment, to love one another as he loved them. Indeed, in order for there to be a community of people, there must be first a community of two, a personal relationship between the self and God, a higher power.

M. Scott Peck has mentioned the religious-mystic nature of his community experiences, but also emphasized that it is not
exclusive to Christians or any particular religion. People from all walks of spiritual life, including those who are agnostic and atheist, have been part of communities, and felt the spiritual transformation that comes with the experience. It is not the name of Name, but the experience, of being. Instead of defining the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, old theologians would benefit much more from simply dancing in joy to celebrate the Grace of the Gospel, to be children again.

Our language, any language, simple lacks the capacity to describe, to define, to discuss certain aspects and concepts of community, not only because by its very nature it is difficult, but also because by our very history, our language lacks the vocabulary to describe an experience so new and perhaps, alien to the human condition. I have heard that Inuits and others in the Artic have dozens of words to describe different kinds of snow, under different weather conditions, etc. We lack the vocabulary to describe community, in its many stages, and under different conditions as it evolves from a stone, to a gem.

When is a Society a Community?

If the social road to utopia is the spiritual transformation of a community, when does a society become a community? And, what precisely, is the process of spiritual transformation for a society?

The late great M. Scott Peck has written extensively and over many years on this topic.The two books most relevant to the current discussion would be "Road Less Traveled", and "The Different Drum". The first is about the individual spiritual transformation, and the second is about community building. Both are highly recommended classics that I think, in my humble opinion, should be in the standard high school curriculum.

According to Peck, on page 86 of "The Different Drum", there are four stages of community formation. A society can only become a community when it has traversed the journey through the four stages. There isn't any empirical research on the upper limit of the size of community, and there isn't any obvious rule about the duration of the four different stages; they can be very short, or lasting an agonizingly long time. Here are the four stages as Peck named them:

1. PseudoCommunity
2. Chaos
3. Emptiness
4. Community

A small group of people will obviously achieve community faster than a larger group, but there are anecdotes of a fairly large group achieving community fairly quickly. The key is stage three, emptiness. It is equivalent to a number of different concepts in religion and philosophy: from Christian humility, to zen's nothingness, and even psychoanalytic dissolution of ego boundaries. As it says in Tao, the Name that can be named is not the real Name. So I won't try to define it, or even describe it. As in quantum mechanics, the only true measure of an entity is to obsever its impact on the environment. And the act of observation will change the nature of the entity, and affect the accuracy of the measurement. Ironically, the more precise we try to define or measure something, the more fuzzy it becomes in its orthogonal quality.

In any case, I digress...

I think there is a need for balance between patriotic pride within a society, as there is an indisputable need for personal sense of self-worth, and yet, at the same time, to have a sense of humility towards the greater whole, a sense of empathy for others, and a sense of connectedness with the others, not only individually, but also collectively.

Only in this complicated balancing act of Self and Not-Self, that we can achieve a society that is also a community - when ALL the individuals of the society are spiritually transformed to become leaders and followers simultaneously. This is the fractal networked utopia of my technocratic dreams. The quality of our individuals, every single one of them, is the difference between utopia and the techno-nightmare forewarned by Bill Joy's Wired article. The war on terrorism, whether it is against bombers or hackers or just the neighbourhood bullies, must be fought on a spiritual level, through education, and not with guns and bombs. Christ said that those who live by the sword will die by the sword. Although there are drastic times, as in World War Two against Nazi Germany, when guns and bombs are needed, there are also times, as it is said in the Art of War, when to win a war is not to fight it. And to achieve utopia is a long process, not achieved overnight, but as described in M Scott. Peck's book "A World Waiting to be Born" requiring painstaking patience and forebearance.