Peter N. Herndon
In the introductory lessons for this unit (two to three days), students will study some of the ideas for utopian communities which began in Europe. The teacher will present some of the ideas of Sir Thomas More from his book,
Utopia
, and students will be encouraged to discuss his ideas. The same day, the class will compare More’s views with those of John Calvin, from his book,
Geneva
, in which he described his attempts to reform and reorganize his own city, Geneva, Switzerland, into a City of God. The purpose of the comparison is to provide stimulation for the first assignment: designing a plan for a “model community of the future,” which will include a map and several basic rules for the community to follow. The next day, students will be organized into groups to discuss their “model” assignments from the night before. The student groups will be expected, then, to arrive at a common plan, including a set of “Articles of Agreement” for their community. Questions to consider would include these:
-
1. What are the responsibilities of the leader(s)?
-
2. What are the responsibilities and privileges of the members?
-
3. How would legal disagreements be settled?
-
4. What are the qualifications for leadership?
-
5. What are the qualifications for membership?
-
6. What would the community grow, produce or manufacture in order to provide work for its members?
-
7. How would wealth be distributed?
After the students have completed their group assignment, a representative from each group will report their conclusions to the class. Summaries will be highlighted for points of agreement and contrast. Homework will consist of excerpts from each of three Community Covenants: New Harmony, Pennsylvania; Zoar, Ohio; and Oneida, New York. Students will be expected to select out principles and ideas that are both workable and unworkable. Discussion will follow in the next class period with the possible revision of group Articles composed the previous day. Students should note that two basic philosophies are present in the selections from homework; i.e., one which promoted Christian fellowship and separation from the world (New Harmony and Zoar) and the other which advocated a purely socialistic economic venture (Oneida).
The next two days will be devoted to examine two reform-minded men, the British industrialist Robert Owen and the French socialist Charles Fourier. Owen came to the United States in 1824 and gained his personal wealth by successful management of several mills in Scotland and England. His theory, put into practice in places like New Lanark, Scotland, was that village problems had to be solved as collective, rather than individual faults. Signs of crime or unproductiveness meant that the village institutions had to be adjusted; Owen became an advocate of preventative and educational reform rather than punitive control. He wrote extensively in the early nineteenth century and promoted immediate social reform through the establishment of many small-scale communal experiments. Then, in 1824, he came to America and bought the village which the Rappites owned in southern Indiana and renamed it New Harmony, where he attempted to put his theory into practice. His sights were high as he began this work:
. . . with these Great Truths before us, with the practice of the social system, as soon as it shall be well understood among us, our principles will, I trust, spread from Community to Community, from State to State, from Continent to Continent, until this system and these truths shall overshadow the whole earth, shedding fragrance and abundance, intelligence and happiness, upon all the sons of men.
Fourier, son of wealthy French parents, prophesied many of the things Owenites did in the communitarian movement. His ideas were translated into English by his disciple, Albert Brisbane, and published in America in 1840, sparking an immediate American response even greater than Owen’s two decades earlier.
A sampling of Brisbane’s writings on Fourier’s philosophy follows:
The world does not want an equal division of the present scanty amount of wealth, it wants an immense increase of production, and then an equal division of the same, according to, as each has aided in creating it . . . Genius must now set itself to raise the social condition of man, and to redress the disorders of the planet he inhabits . . . Society, concern, cooperation, is the secret of the coming Paradise.
The worker, under the Fourier model, would be working in “Groups and Series,” or short hours in a variety of tasks, rather than monotonous repetition. Instead of being a “cog in a vast machine,” the worker would enjoy diversity and friendly rivalry with other groups of workers. A “Unitary Building” would house all members under one roof and household tasks would be a joint effort resulting in reduction in hours spent in menial tasks. Architecturally, Fourier planned the phalanstery building so that each family would find an apartment to suit budget and taste. The motto was “Unity and Harmony.”
Students will compare and contrast the ideas of these two men, Owen and Fourier, both of whom disdained large cities. Both shared the common belief that a person’s character is not shaped by him but for him. Through carefully planned communities, therefore, man would become a more perfect creature. Both embraced technology as an essential aspect, which was different from most of the religious experiments already in progress. These men believed in the dignity of work, in joint ownership and equal reward, a moderation of earning and spending and working—all in order to “permit a more wholesome and simple life,” to encourage the simple pleasures of personal relationships.
Before examining the major religious communities of the period, students will spend a class period examining the influential ideas of a third strong leader among communitarian groups, John Humphrey Noyes, founder of “Bible Communism” or “Perfectionism.” His group studied the Bible as well as other communitarian publications including the Fourierist journal,
The Harbinger
. Noyes believed that individual human failings could be eliminated in time by applying collective insight of the community. Perfectionists were expected regularly to appear before a committee of older members who evaluated their personal strengths and weaknesses. This “mutual criticism” was described by Noyes this way:
‘Sometimes persons are criticized by the entire group; at other times by a committee of six, eight, twelve or more, selected by themselves from among these best acquainted with them, and best able to do justice to their character . . . It is an ordeal that reveals insincerity and selfishness; but it also often takes the form of commendation, and reveals hidden virtues as well as secret faults.’ (Quoted in Melville, p. 47)
In order to better discuss Noyes’ ideas, students will be given a brief assignment the night before which outlines the Perfectionists positions on joint ownership of property and equal distribution of goods. Another unique idea of the group was their belief in “complex marriage,” where all members were united in group marriage, a practice which caused their Vermont neighbors to run them out of Putney in 1848. Group decision-making was an important part of the community, but Noyes personally exercised unchallenged authority to appoint leaders and veto any decisions unacceptable to the “law of love.”
The class period will include a role-play where selected students will participate in a mock “mutual criticism” evaluation of a Perfectionist community member. Also, students will consider the leadership qualities necessary to a successful community, in light of qualities of Noyes, Fourier and Owen. A quotation by Horace Greeley, editor of the
New York Tribune
, and a Fourierist supporter will be considered:
‘They (Fourierist leaders) may have failed again and again . . . yet they are sure to jump into any new movement as if they had been born expressly to superintend and direct it, though they are morally certain to ruin whatever they lay their hands on. Destitute of means, of practical ability of prudence, tact and common sense, they have such a wealth of assurance and self confidence that they clutch the responsible positions which the capable and worthy modestly shrink from . . . Many an experiment is thus wrecked, when engineered by its best members, it might have succeeded.’ (Quoted in Hinds p. 163)
Before examining the religious communes of the period, which proved to be the longest-lasting, students should consider three quotations by contemporaries of the period under study:
“Now if we can, with a knowledge of true architectural principles, build one house rightly, conveniently and elegantly, we can, by taking it for a model and building others like it, make a perfect and beautiful city: in the same manner, if we can, with a knowledge of true social principles, organize one township rightly, we can, by organizing others like it, and by spreading and rendering them universal, establish a true Social and Political order.” (Hayden, p. 8)
“A commune, to exist harmoniously, must be composed of persons who are of one mind upon some question, which to them shall appear to important as to take the place of religion . . . ”
“A serious obstacle to the success of any socialistic experiment must always be confronted. I allude to the kind of persons who are naturally attracted to it. Along with many noble and lofty souls, . . . there throng scores of whom the world is quite worthy—the conceited, played-out, the idle and the good-for-nothing generally; who, finding themselves utterly out of place in the world as it is, rashly conclude that they are exactly fitted for the world as it ought to be.” (Melville, p. 50)
Can we predict the possible downfall of the Owenite, Fourierite and Perfectionist societies? Students will be asked to voice possible obstacles to building an ideal community that will stand the test of time. What are the ingredients to success? Can religion provide the cement that will hold these ideals together in a way that all participants can enjoy life together in a true unity and harmony?
Communitarian thinking was most popular in the United States between 1820 and 1850, with widespread popularity of such causes as abolition, labor rights, women’s rights, and educational and penal reform. The ideal communities in America expressed widespread nonviolent dissent from warfare and economic exploitation, or open advocacy of positive social reorganization and the development of new institutions. Reformers could present these social experiments as:
. . . ‘garden,’ in terms of horticultural and agricultural productivity . . . . It could be presented as ‘machine,’ in terms of its efficient design and industrial productivity . . . . Or it could be presented as ‘model home,’ in terms of its design and life style. (Hayden, p. 14)
Students will spend the next two to three days examining the unique history of the Shaker movement, which began in 1774, with the arrival of “Mother” Ann Lee from England. The first Shaker settlement was established two years later, south of Albany, New York. A religious revival broke out in the area in 1780, which attracted many new converts to the Shaker sect; converts who would form the nucleus of communal societies. Mother Ann preached, as many others did, that the Second Coming of Christ was imminent, and believers had better prepare themselves for the Day of Judgment. What made the Shakers unique was the belief that the thousand-year reign of Christ, predicted by John the Evangelist, had already begun. She described the Millennium as a slow, progressive redemption of the world effected by members of the Millennial Church (the Shakers). Mother Ann urged followers to “Do your work as if you had a thousand years to live and as if you were to die tomorrow.” That the ushering in of a New Age should be heralded by a woman was not a great problem for Mother Ann’s followers. One said:
‘There are few in this day, who will pretend to deny the agency of the first woman in leading mankind into sin. Why should it be thought incredible that the agency of a woman should necessarily be first in leading the human race out of sin?’ (Quoted in Horgan, p. 17)
The doctrine of celibacy put forth by the Shakers implied that the wrongs of the world could all be laid at the doorstep of lustful carnality. “You must forsake the marriage of the flesh, or you cannot be married to the Lamb, nor have any share in the resurrection of Christ.” (Quoted in Andrews, p.20) There was, however, tolerance for those who could not bear the “full cross” of a celibate life and who chose to remain married. Mother Ann was quoted as saying that Shakers do not forbid marriage to all Christians:
‘All that cannot or will not take up their cross for the Kingdom of Christ’s sake, and that only, I would advise them to marry and live after the flesh in a lawful manner, and be servants to their families—for that is natural, and less sinful in the sight of God than any other way of gratifying that nature.’ (Quoted in Horgan, p. 19)
The Shakers and Mother Ann were persecuted wherever they went, and in 1780, Mother Ann was imprisoned on a charge of treason. She was kept in jail for six months, and was finally released after followers convinced George Clinton, the New York state Governor, of her innocence. Following her release from incarceration, Mother Ann’s fame spread. For the next two and one-half years, Mother Ann and other Shaker leaders travelled throughout New England, planting the seed for the New England communities which the Shakers would organize in the next decade.
Between 1781 and 1826, the Shakers founded twenty-five settlements from Maine to the Ohio frontier. The existence of over two dozen Shaker communities was cited as evidence that it was possible to construct a model community and then to duplicate it elsewhere. John Humphrey Noyes, leader of the Oneida Perfectionists, said of the Shakers that they have demonstrated the success of communitarian societies to the extent that other communal groups were more indebted to the Shakers than to “any or all other social architects of modern times.”
The Shakers became famous for their building skills, and therefore, during the study of Shakerism, students will study not only Shaker architecture and design, but also the design of other community experiments of the nineteenth century. Students will see slides of many of the buildings they will see when they take a field trip to the Shaker Village and Museum in Hancock, Massachusetts. For the Shaker, the relationship between physical building and spiritual building was very close, since each Shaker member was pictured as part of the heavenly temple on earth. An early Shaker hymn illustrates this relationship:
-
Leap and shout, ye living building
-
Christ is in his glory come
-
Cast your eyes on Mother’s children
-
See what glory fills the room:
There was a sense in which the personal spiritual growth of the individual was identified with the external physical growth of the community. A “Hymn of Love” celebrates this union:
-
Love the inward, new creation
-
Love the glory that it brings;
-
Love to lay a good foundation,
-
in the line of outward things.
The “living building” of the first hymn had become a living and loving building process.
The Shakers were a group apart. They were a self-sufficient group, culturally and physically independent from and with little concern for the “world of anti-Christ.” Mother Ann was one of the first advocates of equal rights for women in America, and all the Shaker sisters shared work and profits equally with the men of the sect. The Shakers anticipated the temperance and anti-tobacco movements in American life by years. Neither were the Shakers interested in war, voting or in temporal government, nor did they seek to adopt the cultural and economic benefits of a growing industrial country. They firmly held onto their rituals, doctrines and agricultural way of life. One of their most popular songs concludes with this no-nonsense summation of the Shaker lifestyle:
-
It’s the Gift to be simple
-
The Gift to be free,
-
The Gift to come down
-
Where the Gift ought to be . . .
Perhaps Ann Lee summarized the Shaker desire better than anyone when she said, “This gospel will go to the end of the world, and it will not be propagated so much by preaching, as by the good works of the people.” This, then, is the Shaker legacy.
In the final two days of the unit, students will engage in group work, inquiring into the rise and fall of other nineteenth-century communities and will be asked to report back to their classmates on their findings. They will be expected to investigate such aspects as leadership, organizing principles, achievements, unusual or unique beliefs and practices, and reasons for decline. Students will be given a list of quotations by various persons who have evaluated the different communitarian experiments and what they revealed about the people who made up these colonies and the nation at large. Why did some last only a few months and others, like the Shakers, remain intact for over a century? Why are there few such communities in existence today?
Hopefully, there will be time for and interest in discussing the beliefs and practices of the Mennonite (Amish) communities which exist today in parts of Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana.