I T'S FASCINATING TO HEAR SO MANY PEOPLE refer to "eco" this or "eco" that ... knowing that they're not using the "eco" term to mean the same thing. Indeed, "eco" seems to have become one of the buzzwords of the '90s.
"Ecology" means the science of the relations and interactions between organisms and their environment, including other organisms. By definition, this includes us.
Groups calling themselves eco-communities or ecovillages usually do include social and personal values relating to governance in their vision statements. However, it is often easier for their members to agree on those inspiring statements than it is for them to practice what they preach.
The question of governance--how the group makes its decisions, and the roles and responsibilities associated with membership--is of vital importance in determining how a community will pursue its dream. (Although it's conceivable to have an eco-community or ecovillage based on a benevolent dictatorship, so far all of the attempts I've come across consider democratic decision-making to be a core element of sustainable, ecological design.)
However, aspiring eco-communities seem to be more versed in the organizational and technical realms: architecture, systems design, ownership options, economics, solar hardware, composting bins, organic gardens, and so on. Where they find the greatest challenge (and often put the least attention) is in the realm of group process, interpersonal matters, and social interactions.
THE ESSENCE OF ECO-COMMUNITIES is sustainability, and in the long run nothing will prove to be sustainable if their members don't know how to cooperate, communicate, and compromise. By "compromise" I'm not talking about abandoning core values, but rather learning to adapt to different perceptions and variable needs, coming up with solutions that embrace diversity as creatively as possible. Of course, each eco-community will also need to get along with its neighboring communities, so there's the broader issue of social tolerance. And, more dynamically, the actual affirmative support of neighbors and other communities that embrace cultural and lifestyle choices different from their own.
Having noted that most eco-groups have created vision statements (some quite elaborate) about governance and decision-making, why is it that the process skills tend to lag behind the rest? For starters, group dynamics and interpersonal work involve very elusive technologies. Humans are remarkably complex organisms, notorious for having different experiences of an event--depending on the person's conditioning, his or her stage of life, environmental constraints and pressures, the weather, shifting moods, and so on.
The unfortunate reality is that many communities spend seemingly endless hours in less-than-efficient meetings, fumbling around with whatever systems and skills they've already developed. Further, if there are unresolved interpersonal issues lingering beneath the surface, more often than not the unspoken tensions will undermine the group's ability to reach a creative, effective decision.
Although a community's process skills tend to improve over time due to increased experience and maturity, there are typically many more process technologies to choose from than what you'll find in actual practice. Today it's common to come across magazines describing solar and wind technologies, and alternative techno-gadget catalogues, and the latest about fine home building--but how often do you find periodicals focused on meeting facilitation, or effective committee work, or consensus? Sure, the bookshelf holds a few "process" books published maybe five, 10 years ago ... but why no quarterly magazines?
Could it be that people find it relatively easy to wrap their minds around the more technical "eco"-topics, yet hardly know where to begin in trying to make sense of group process? What can we do to track the latest developments in social technology, and then how do we gracefully but effectively integrate these new tools into our existing systems?
I suspect a significant part of the problem is that we get easily boggled by the complexities of personal and group dynamics, so we tend to settle into the first pattern we discover that even pretends to address some of the obvious problems. (Much like inertia in relationships: sticking with a relationship that's not working rather than face the risk of being without a relationship while looking for one closer to what's really wanted.)
THERE IS NO ONE SET OF ECO-CRITERIA that can be applied universally to every situation. However, I do have opinions about what's necessary and what might be possible, and here's a list of some process standards that I'd recommend in the quest for sustainability:
The essence of this is to maintain an efficient process that leaves each member knowing that any decision relevant to his/her life was made with his/her needs included in the formula of what's good for society and for the planet (and that any overriding decisions made "for the common good" were truly that, not merely the result of "politics as usual").
The best way to come up with great decisions is to get everyone's input before crafting a proposal. This is the way of consensus, and means getting everyone's best thinking--especially from those parties most at odds with each other. It's easiest for groups holding the fundamental belief that there is a good solution to any problem, and whose members have a deep-seated commitment to work to find it.
It is always necessary that each decision be reviewed with the question, "Has justice been served?" Further, the examination needs to be broad enough to incorporate environmental concerns, minority perspectives, and unpopular ideas. Any time a decision has even an ounce of injustice imbedded within, it will not prove to be a sustainable decision.
Even when there is no doubt in our mind about the rightness of our position, time may still prove us wrong ... at least in part. It is essential that we recognize our mistakes when they're revealed, and to admit that we were wrong, individually and collectively. We must then act quickly to upgrade old decisions that were based on bad information, half truths, and poor assumptions. One technique for reducing the frequency of such embarrassments is to always seek to identify and understand the "grain of truth" carried in each opposing point of view.
This means choosing representation by servant leaders who are selected for experience, wisdom, humility, dedication, and integrity, rather than because of sound bites or bankrolls. Community members must learn that it is often wise to turn down those people who aspire to a leadership role, as actively seeking such a job is more often a sign of insecurity and an inflated ego rather than of a desire to serve. Effective leaders must clearly articulate the collective vision, and inspire the people to work cooperatively to manifest it.
Community members need to know that their representatives are, indeed, making decisions for the common good. Unfortunately, wealth and power have a corrupting influence, and history shows that many leaders who start out as idealists end up with an in-group of supporters (admirers, "Yes" men, loyalists, "devotees") who help shroud the leader's weaknesses in a cloak of invisibility, and ultimately reinforce the leader's mistaken sense of infallibility. The members, collectively, must take responsibility for the monitoring, as asking representatives to monitor themselves is to invite trouble. There should be a quick and efficient recall process available.
All levels of government, including communities, have a responsibility to keep open books and records. People must have access to all information used to make decisions in their behalf--how else can they monitor the performance of their representatives and decide if justice has been served? It is dangerous for decision-makers to withhold sensitive or strategic information because they think that only they know what's best, or that the masses have not been trained to handle the most important decisions.
Although a community cannot thrive unless it achieves a healthy balance on many fronts, one of the most critical areas is in the relationship between privacy and community--the growth of the individual vs. the broader "work" of the community. Each is tremendously important, yet it's hard for groups to find a workable middle ground, and easy to err in either direction. The dynamic interplay between the two is best balanced through frequent monitoring and occasional priority adjustments.
This is a cornerstone for individual growth and effective group process, and an area where excellent information is already available from many sources. Make sure your group is in clear agreement about what's in, what's out, and how you will decide if and when it's time to change the ground rules.
I'm convinced that folks mature faster, and develop more effective personal and group skills, when nudged along their personal growth paths by a challenging-yet-nurturing group process. A few of my favorite ground rules: no subject is taboo; no gossip (it's OK to talk about someone in their absence only if you also tell them to their face, though perhaps more diplomatically); use "I" statements when possible; and practice active listening.
A major issue in terms of sustainability is how well a group spreads its leadership responsibilities among its members, and passes the baton to the next generation. To begin with, it's important to have a healthy ratio of old-timers to newcomers ... with enough experience available to offset the idealistic and often ungrounded enthusiasm of young members and new recruits. If, over time, more and more responsibility falls to fewer and fewer leaders, the group is in trouble. A healthy community needs systems in place for training new leaders and developing new skills among its members. Ultimately, the most effective leaders will be working themselves out of a job. Additionally, rituals, rites of passage, and celebrations can add powerful clarity and incentive to the transition process.
If this process stuff becomes all work and no play, your group needs an immediate injection of laughter. The sooner, the better. Don't take yourselves so seriously ... no matter how long and how hard you work at it, there will always be mistakes to fix, and room for improvement. So be patient, and hang in there!
Copyright © 1996 by Fellowship for Intentional Community. All rights reserved. Opinions expressed by the authors and correspondents are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of the publisher.
Movement groups may reprint with permission. Please direct inquiries to Communities, PO Box 169, Masonville, CO 80541-0169, (970) 593-5615.