Monastic life
Aug. 26th, 2009 04:38 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mrsbrownI got back from Perth this morning and I'm still contemplating. That's appropriate really, we went to New Norcia yesterday.
It's a monastery established about 160 years ago by a couple of spanish monks and is full of old buildings, some renaissance religious art and a fabulous old hotel, where we stayed overnight.
The place is great. It was easily the highlight of our trip, even if Kings Park had great flowers, the wreck from the Bavaria is cool, Rottnest Island was exhausting but fun and The Pinnacles are f*cking amazing.
New Norcia got me thinking about the nature of a community that builds something and how people can contribute and have ownership of something, and then leave without taking anything of it away.
Monks to be at New Norcia initially signup for a year. At the end of the year they sign up for 3 years and then join for the rest of their lives. I understand that they don't have to stay at the monastery for their whole lives, and during the tour I got the impression that they recommit to the monastery every 3 years, but it doesn't say so on the website. They talk about how easy it is to join, but they don't mention the requirement for a penis.
I've spent a lot of time thinking about communities lately. Yes, I'm an idealist. I like to think that there must be a way that a group of people can live together or towards a common goal without it all fucking up, or the idea dying because of people's self interest. Although watching my Dad's friendship groups and my own and the Steiner School and, of course, Crossroads, reminds me that it wouldn't all be a bed of roses. But I'd still like to set something up and make something fabulous happen and thinking about a monastery that's lasted for 160 years makes me think that that style of community might have some things about it that I could learn from.
I like that the monastery is it's own entity. It's separate from the people working for and within it. People can make short or long term commitments to it but then when they leave their investment stays with the monastery. They aren't worried about capital gains or getting a return on their investment.
The monastery also seems to have a clear purpose. People joining mostly know what to expect and what they've signed up for.
There's a mechanism for people joining for a short time to see what it's like and then make a longer term commitment.
It's only occured to me since yesterday that maybe this is how a land based cooperative should work. People should become members for a defined amount of time, with no expectation of getting something out of it when they leave. The assets stay with the cooperative. The cooperative is its own entity, just like the Benedictine Monastery.
There should be a really clear mission and set of goals, with long timelines. Something like: In 100 years there should be a self sufficient monastic like community based on the reenactment of medieval life, which acknowledges and values modern life and conveniences (the internet! sanitation!). The first goal might be; In the next 12 months we will find and fund land and build suitable toilet facilities to support members working on the land one day per month.
Making the ultimate goal so far away means that people can commit to doing stuff now that they enjoy and don't have to find a payoff. It also means that you can make a business case for doing stuff like planting really slow growing trees, because the Coop will still be around to reap the benefit, not the members.
To work out the immediate goals you'd need to have a strategy day/weekend each year. Agreeing on the 1 year, 5 year, 10 year and 100 year goals.
Making group decisions can be a pain. That's why you restrict it to once a year. The rest of the time perhaps you use another part of monastic life - an Abbot and Prior, to make day to day decisions.
I'm imagining that you would have an annual membership fee, set to pay the mortgage and other costs. Once it's fully working membership would be similar to the Benedictine Monastery; anyone can come along for a couple of months and then they could choose to join for a year. At the end of a year, if it's acceptable to the community, you could join for 3 years. Everyone joins for a maximum of 3 years at a time, and re-joining isn't automatic, it needs to be acceptable to the community. That's probably a two edged sword, inviting factions but making it possible to get rid of annoying or difficult types.
What happens if the cooperative is would up? Because I'm realistic enough to know that's a possibility. The assets could be distributed to the people who are members at the time. That's tricky. Alternatively, maybe everyone who becomes a member stays a member forever, but the membership proportion increases for every year you're a member and you have two types of membership: those who can make long term decisions for the coop and those who get something in the event the coop winds up.
There you have it. The start of my thoughts on a land based community.
It's a monastery established about 160 years ago by a couple of spanish monks and is full of old buildings, some renaissance religious art and a fabulous old hotel, where we stayed overnight.
The place is great. It was easily the highlight of our trip, even if Kings Park had great flowers, the wreck from the Bavaria is cool, Rottnest Island was exhausting but fun and The Pinnacles are f*cking amazing.
New Norcia got me thinking about the nature of a community that builds something and how people can contribute and have ownership of something, and then leave without taking anything of it away.
Monks to be at New Norcia initially signup for a year. At the end of the year they sign up for 3 years and then join for the rest of their lives. I understand that they don't have to stay at the monastery for their whole lives, and during the tour I got the impression that they recommit to the monastery every 3 years, but it doesn't say so on the website. They talk about how easy it is to join, but they don't mention the requirement for a penis.
I've spent a lot of time thinking about communities lately. Yes, I'm an idealist. I like to think that there must be a way that a group of people can live together or towards a common goal without it all fucking up, or the idea dying because of people's self interest. Although watching my Dad's friendship groups and my own and the Steiner School and, of course, Crossroads, reminds me that it wouldn't all be a bed of roses. But I'd still like to set something up and make something fabulous happen and thinking about a monastery that's lasted for 160 years makes me think that that style of community might have some things about it that I could learn from.
I like that the monastery is it's own entity. It's separate from the people working for and within it. People can make short or long term commitments to it but then when they leave their investment stays with the monastery. They aren't worried about capital gains or getting a return on their investment.
The monastery also seems to have a clear purpose. People joining mostly know what to expect and what they've signed up for.
There's a mechanism for people joining for a short time to see what it's like and then make a longer term commitment.
It's only occured to me since yesterday that maybe this is how a land based cooperative should work. People should become members for a defined amount of time, with no expectation of getting something out of it when they leave. The assets stay with the cooperative. The cooperative is its own entity, just like the Benedictine Monastery.
There should be a really clear mission and set of goals, with long timelines. Something like: In 100 years there should be a self sufficient monastic like community based on the reenactment of medieval life, which acknowledges and values modern life and conveniences (the internet! sanitation!). The first goal might be; In the next 12 months we will find and fund land and build suitable toilet facilities to support members working on the land one day per month.
Making the ultimate goal so far away means that people can commit to doing stuff now that they enjoy and don't have to find a payoff. It also means that you can make a business case for doing stuff like planting really slow growing trees, because the Coop will still be around to reap the benefit, not the members.
To work out the immediate goals you'd need to have a strategy day/weekend each year. Agreeing on the 1 year, 5 year, 10 year and 100 year goals.
Making group decisions can be a pain. That's why you restrict it to once a year. The rest of the time perhaps you use another part of monastic life - an Abbot and Prior, to make day to day decisions.
I'm imagining that you would have an annual membership fee, set to pay the mortgage and other costs. Once it's fully working membership would be similar to the Benedictine Monastery; anyone can come along for a couple of months and then they could choose to join for a year. At the end of a year, if it's acceptable to the community, you could join for 3 years. Everyone joins for a maximum of 3 years at a time, and re-joining isn't automatic, it needs to be acceptable to the community. That's probably a two edged sword, inviting factions but making it possible to get rid of annoying or difficult types.
What happens if the cooperative is would up? Because I'm realistic enough to know that's a possibility. The assets could be distributed to the people who are members at the time. That's tricky. Alternatively, maybe everyone who becomes a member stays a member forever, but the membership proportion increases for every year you're a member and you have two types of membership: those who can make long term decisions for the coop and those who get something in the event the coop winds up.
There you have it. The start of my thoughts on a land based community.
clueless rambling
Date: 2009-08-26 09:03 am (UTC)For a Monastery, some form of religious experience is the acknowledged return. Participants pay for the opportunity to work toward a higher purpose. It's a Zeal Model! Replace the spiritual zeal with reenactment zeal and the model may be largely transferable, as you observe.
Ideally, of course, a big wodge of suitable land with established amenities would exist at establishment of a co-op, and that would take the financial investment/return issue out of the equation. Monies paid would go to maintenance and improvements.
I wonder whether it would be too divisive to divide the participants into "founders*" who largely pay off (and retain control of) the property and "members*" whose (perhaps smaller contribution of) funds mostly go toward paying for maintenance and improvements? The core start-up group would be Founders and control big decisions, and would decide who, if anyone, to permit to take on a Founder role over time.
Ooh. I think I just made your idea into a cult. Excuse me, nothing to see here, move along...
*insert your preferred descriptors