Why do communities fail?

Building back communities before pushing new designs

In my approach to design, I include the notion of contentment (criterion no. 7), because it's obviously silly to think of proposing designs without taking into account what they bring in terms of happiness to the beings who will be affected by their implementation (and not just human beings).

This notion of contentment inevitably leads to the notion of identity. A person born in Iceland will not have exactly the same needs, the same reference points, the same reflexes, the same logic, the same desires, the same fears, the same culture, in fact, the same identity as someone born in Chile, even if they were both born in the same year. Because, although today's technocratic globalism tends and seeks to standardize cultures, they are far from identical and I personally believe that they never will be, and that is a very good thing.

Even two people born in Iceland, despite having many points in common and a similar culture, won't have exactly the same identity.

Despite the common objection that all humans need to eat, sleep, dress and socialize, it is a fact that we don't all eat the same, sleep at the same hours, wear the same clothes or interact in the same way.

Nature is not uniform, and neither are human beings. Consequently, we must not think of design in terms of a universal, timeless solution - that would be a futile exercise - but in terms of context (a prerequisite for any design), and therefore a clear identification of the beings who will be affected by this design. And while the application of a specific design to each individual may seem seductive, not only is it not always materially feasible, it is also forgetting that the human individual is not an isolated atom, but both a component and a compound of the cosmos, and that in his life he needs to use designs that respect this reality: certain ways of doing things will be specific to him, others to his family, others to his community, others to his country, his ethnic group, his identity as a human being, an animal, a sentient being, and so on. But the further we move away from the individual center of gravity towards the most distant concentric circles of common points, the more we see a reduction in the number of fulfilling designs, and the more imprecise these ones become, because the more we tend towards the universal, the more vague and indeterminate what correctly responds to this universality becomes. We can talk about housing or food, but we won't be able to specify them any further without neglecting the real needs of certain parts of this universality. Proposing a house design won't be suitable for densely populated areas, proposing a vegetarian diet won't be suitable for people who live in arid regions and live off hunting.

This identity characteristic of beings, which could also be called ecosystemic, calls for designs that take it carefully into account.

But there is still a problem to be solved. In this day and age, identity has become increasingly blurred. The fact is, techno-capitalist tyranny is succeeding, by dint of propaganda - as I explained in my article on the disunity of every possible kind caused in human groups for the purposes of domination - in isolating us from one another and even inculcating in us reflexes and personalities unsuited to the structuring of supportive communities.

Don't kill your neighbour (yet)

This phenomenon of societal atomization is obviously amplifying the suffering that is leading a quite substantial fringe of the Western population to consider the importance of rediscovering and reconstituting coherent human communities. The reason for this is that, since time immemorial, human beings have been stronger as a group than on their own. They can more easily secure themselves and realize their destiny through mutual support and the richness of the collective, if only in terms of skills. It is also more nourishing from a relational point of view. Of course, I am not saying that everything can be solved through collective life, but it is necessary to admit that it ultimately poses fewer problems than solitary life, not least because the latter can only be achieved through links of interdependence that are not truly spontaneous nor harmonious, and which are most often trade relations (the supreme reference point of the capitalist world).

This renewed appetite for the collective, almost immediately felt when its natural organic version was lost during the first half of the 20th century, has for several decades led to countless attempts at collective projects, of varying scale and intensity. However, the facts on the ground are clear: sooner or later, almost all collective attempts end in failure.

Having taken part in dozens of these projects myself, almost all of which I have seen fail (I estimate the failure rate at 95%), I have taken the time to reflect on the reasons for these failures and on ways, perhaps, to remedy them.

Unclear aspirations

The first question we need to ask ourselves, and we don't always do (quite rarely in fact), is that of desire, objectives, aspirations and will.

What is the point? Why do I want to live and work collectively?

It is important to determine precisely why we aspire to a collective project, because sincere introspection in this area can reveal some interesting things. For example, we may realize that the desire to belong to a group is exclusively a way of trying to solve our own personal problems. This situation is very common and can only lead to violence, as the group becomes a tool to be used, food to be consumed, but never receives anything in return. Such a situation is too unbalanced to lead to fulfilling communion.

It is also possible to realize that there is a shared desire to move forward as a group, but that the desired directions are not compatible, or may even be at cross-purposes. Here, the problem is not strictly egocentric but primarily communicational, and often arises when members "assume" without having taken the time to discuss it seriously.

I remember staying with a collective for two weeks. After a few days, I asked the members why they had committed themselves to the same place, some of them living under the same roof. Nobody could give me an answer, and it turned out that the people living there were simply looking for a roof over their heads when the project was set up. Hardly anyone in the group wanted to move in the same direction, and the project failed after a few years.

An overly egocentric will

Beyond wanting to join a group for the sole reason that it helps us solve our personal problems, all kinds of too egocentric desires can interfere with group life, and they always take more or less the same form.

First of all, there are those who spontaneously refuse to work for the group, generally inspired by a rather hedonistic approach to life, seeking to suffer no constraints. These people have chosen the collective because it can relieve them of the hassles of solitary life (cooking, cleaning, shopping, etc.). Strictly speaking, these are not personal problems, but rather discomfort in the face of everyday constraints. This type of person may pretend to work for the group for as long as it takes to be accepted and give the impression of participation, but sooner or later they will end up making the group work for them, and won't give anything in return, or at least not generously and spontaneously.

There are also people who have a fairly well-defined life project and expect the group to participate unconditionally. These are often very active people, who communicate little or not at all, who inspire a kind of respect for their work capacity, and can't take any criticism. These people also tend to be the hardest workers: they derive a sense of superiority from this, and look down on those they perceive as less efficient (usually everyone else). Their lack of communication reinforces their resentment, and there is only one possible outcome of this way of doing things: tyranny almost all the time followed by an explosive conflict.

Another very common element in community projects, and fundamentally based on egocentric dynamics, is the constant search for seduction, including sexual seduction. This type of behaviour is the result of people who are so obsessed in gaining emoluments of any kind, thanks to seducing attitudes, that they are actually incapable of giving anything to the group, and in the end adopt only a consuming attitude, not to mention the conflictual contexts they generate around them through relational games (envy, jealousy, resentment, etc.) which they master perfectly, albeit often unconsciously.

Finally, one of the most dysfunctional and egocentric attitudes in a group is also the constant tendency to refuse any kind of hierarchy, lived as an unfair constraint while not being able to take any responsibility at the same time. Meaning wanting the comfortable part of hierarchy without having to deal with the uncomfortable one.

Collective rituals that are too fragile

Collective rituals are the glue that binds the group together, to the extent that I will come back to them later about functional communities. On that matter, I have observed a four-steps systematic pattern in all failed collective projects:

• structuring rituals with everyone taking part, a period of enthusiasm

• routine rituals with optional participation, stabilization period

• rituals begin to fade, with the participation of those most devoted to the collective, at a time when latent imbalances begin to destroy the collective dynamic

• disappearance of rituals followed by the end of the group project

Here again, people's commitment to the group is important to consider, and it is also in this kind of context that rallying, coordinating leaders emerge, reaffirming everyone's commitments through motivation and planning. However, these mobilizers can't work miracles, and if group members are not internally convinced of the merits of participating in collective rituals, it will not work and leaders will end up exhausted.

Material carelessness

Another frequent feature of the collective projects I have been involved in is a great insouciance towards material realities. It is probably a form of advanced hedonism, where people simply ignore what they don't like in life. This manifests itself in indolence, financial irresponsibility and, more broadly, material inefficiency: not being aware of what a project requires, not paying attention to other people's belongings, not measuring the monetary value of certain objects, not repairing things, not thinking about anticipating certain needs, particularly food or garbage management.

Generally speaking, the most materially able people end up carrying the whole group, and without substantial return in one way or another, their frustration will only grow over time until a crisis situation is reached.

A tendency to run away from reality

In the vein of the above, a common trend I have observed in many group projects is the use of means to escape reality. This is not necessarily a sign of hedonism, but also of an inability to relieve suffering and solve problems. The most common means I have observed for doing this are alcohol, cannabis, LSD, self-improvement techniques (one of the most unattackable ways of not dealing with issues), sex, video games, films and series, travelling and more rarely, reading.

Generally speaking, these activities quickly become addictive, and are all the more attractive when the collective project is already failing.

This is the easiest path, less painful than facing reality but it is also the surest way of making the latter coming up back at us later with the same issues or the surest way of missing out our lives completely.

The human mind can be very clever at avoiding confronting certain things, and a phenomenon that has become commonplace today, and which I wanted to expose in this text, is the accumulation of personal development intentions (meditation, yoga, therapies of all kinds) to give the impression of making an effort to improve oneself as a human being, rather than actually doing so. And in fact: a person who, generally unconsciously, doesn't want to improve can attend all the personal development seminars in the world, it will not change a damned thing. The same applies to people who believe that change must always come from outside, and that therapists will solve their problems for them.

Immature communication

Although many people are unable to rectify their shortcomings for the good of the group (either because they don't want to, or because they can't), there are a number of cases where fatal conflicts could be avoided by better communication.

For me, good communication requires two essential elements:

• get to know oneself

• seek to express oneself righteously (both sincerely and accurately)

As a result, all communication improves, because people who really have these two desires simultaneously are both able to make their exchanges constructive and to understand that their interlocutor, provided he shares the same desire for successful communication, is doing the best he can.

In a collective setting, the overriding desire that the project for which a group has been formed should actually come to fruition is the third commitment that will ensure that communications are intentionally conducted with a clear constructive aim (the one that supposedly brought the group together in the first place). These three commitments feed off each other, by the way.

Too little at stake

However, for a collective project to succeed, the people involved have to be decisive, and this is where the reason for failure most often lies.

In nature, living in a community is a necessity for survival above all else. We agree to make efforts on behalf of others as long as we perceive that it will benefit us. In doing so, we discover other joys of group living that we would be wrong to deny ourselves, but the first step we took was necessary for us.

In our current context, for many countries, the minimal comfort of survival is assured by the commercial world, and the desire to join a collective is not fueled by an imperative need for survival, but rather by a search for comfort and meaning. However, since living in a community requires a certain amount of personal effort, the scales can easily tip in favor of disengagement, since the latter no longer implies starving to death in the weeks that follow.

Today, caprice and pusillanimity are both permitted, because the stakes are not so high.

If the latter were vital, it is obvious that people who are usually reluctant to make an effort on behalf of a group would do so much more.

Because of this, the people who really get involved in communities are always those with a strong spirituality (they put their energy at the service of a cause other than themselves), sometimes established by deep intellectual reflection. At present, for example, many communities are forming in an attempt to break away from the dominant model, the "system". Within these communities, only those who are most deeply convinced of the project are able to sustain it over the long term. One of their qualities is the ability to project, for they foresee that the outcome of the current model will lead to catastrophe in the more or less long term. However, a good proportion of community members do not have this level of commitment, either because they do not have the same projective capacity, or because their willingness to change the model is not as great, particularly in view of what the current model brings in terms of convenience, comfort and consumption opportunities.

Functional communities

As I watched many groups fail in their projects (5 years is usually their life expectancy), I asked myself this question: which communities manage to operate over the long term (say, 50+ years)?

There is only one type: religious communities.

I then took the time to identify the common points they share, and here they are:

• a doctrine of authority

• a hierarchy

• rigorously observed rituals

• individualities at the service of the collective above all

• a minimal material comfort

• a life almost systematically lived in the countryside

• very well-structured activities in time and space

• a solidarity conditional on compliance with the doctrine

• times for speaking and listening

• very little idleness

• very little time for oneself

• no "entertainment" (drugs, Internet, cinema, etc.)

• a controlled sexuality

I'm not saying that all the communities that respect these criteria are great. In fact, some of them seem to me to be structured by tyranny and brainwashing, but they all share these characteristics.

Doctrines are interesting in the sense that they are not necessarily simple or even really comprehensible, but they are all experienced as an order to be followed so that the best happens. This is a form of submission that can be lived in trust, but also sometimes in fear. Respect for an established order is essential if a community is to survive, and this order is always ensured by a hierarchy that will enforce it through direct orders that are regularly renewed.

Rituals are frequent and always rigorously observed. People who choose not to observe them are excluded from the community. These rituals are often linked to meals, times of religious celebration, astrology and calendar feasts. There are rituals every day, and of course some are more spread out over time, such as annual rituals. Some Hindu communities also insist on sexual rituals.

The living environment of religious communities is characterized by a certain level of material comfort, though not extravagant, except in the case of certain types of architecture. The aim is to eat well, sleep warmly, ensure a minimum of good health and enjoy a soothing, harmonious environment conducive to work.

In terms of activities, those that come up most often are gardening, medicine, meditation or prayer, reading, writing, cooking, housework, simple maintenance work, artistic expression, conversations and trading. In fact, anything that enables to live daily lives in a decent way, with certain areas of expression that are intended for the group, if not the world. There is, of course, some time for oneself, but these are, in the end, quite short and few in number. For the most part, these activities are based on the seasons.

While the members of these communities are certainly in solidarity with each other, particularly through sharing, including by evoking their own vulnerabilities and doubts, this only becomes apparent if, first and foremost, they respect the prescribed doctrine. Otherwise, any privileged solidarity stops. This kind of conditional solidarity is interesting because it reminds us at all times that the community only gives if we give ourselves first, and this seems to be very effective in dissuading would-be profiteers who would like to join.

In the same way, the importance of working, the absence of psychotropic substances or addictive leisure activities, entertainment in the broadest sense, the small amount of time devoted to oneself, the structuring of sexuality (or even its absence) appear as constraints such that people of a profiteering nature are immediately dissuaded from applying to these communities.

In the case of certain Hindu communities, where psychotropic and sexual experiences are abundant, it appears that the members of these communities are rarely the same, and that those who settle there for a long time find what they need, mainly from a financial and sexual point of view. I wouldn't take them personally as an example, and I don't see them as particularly conducive to the development of fulfilling designs, but rather as places of spiritual vagrancy, but this is a quite personal opinion.

Finding the right formula

Of course, religious-type communities are not for everyone, and again, they should not be seen as a universal remedy for the painful sense of loneliness provoked by the technocratic capitalist globalist model. I do believe, however, that the formula is right for all communities. It will simply be applied all the more strictly, even violently in certain contexts, than communities are in a state of fusion (living in the same place, working together, celebrating their rituals together, sharing all their living spaces, financially interdependent, etc.) and the stakes are high.

The narrowest religious communities, however, have the peculiarity of not having children, and so cannot survive on their own.

On that matter, another very common form of community that has only recently become dysfunctional is the village. In this context, interactions are less permanent and dense, and everyone can have more time for themselves and their families. However, the same prerequisites are present as in religious communities, although they are weaker and less immediate. In a village, too, solidarity is conditional and work traditionally central. There is some entertainment, but it is generally appreciated as a reward for efforts made on behalf of the community, rather than as a place for complete slackness.

This village model is the most widespread in the world, and if today we find villages without a "village spirit", it is because the model applied to us (which we didn't ask for, but to which we more or less consent) encourages a solitary and distrustful lifestyle. In fact, the media are primarily responsible for this, and the propaganda we are constantly subjected to tends to make the every man for himself attitude take precedence over other ways of relating to others.

Some communities exist in the city and meet the same structural criteria. These are sometimes religious communities, but can also be structured around a common project, as in schools or factories. Necessary collective places where solidarity arises spontaneously from the difficulty of the work, and which can find a semblance of structure because the objectives are relatively clear from the outset.

In the case of projects aimed at getting back to basics, to working the land, to a less capitalist economy, to more natural medicines, to a greater respect for living things, I think it is important to remember that most people will only change their lifestyle when they no longer have a choice, or when the choice is the one of least effort. In this respect, the pioneers of the new models need to be patient and accept the fact that most people who cross their path will come and go without necessarily making much of a commitment. However, it is important to set an example if we want to inspire the world. And, as I wrote in my article on the subject, there is no point in arguing about it.

When debating is useless

In addition, and although the suffering of a lack of belonging is strong in the West today, we should not make the frequent mistake of responding to loneliness with an excess of community. In this respect, the village model is the one that will suit most people. We just need to take the time to revive the spirit of our villages with the inhabitants that are ready to and with whom we can aim for similar goals.

Bearing in mind the points raised here, I sincerely believe that we can move forward constructively by limiting disappointments. Partnering with people of good will will also be the very first step to take, and it usually takes time to identify passing moods from genuine life commitments.

As for the shortcomings mentioned earlier, fortunately there are situations where their presence (quite human in the end) does not compromise a collective project, and this is what is ultimately most important, and can only be ensured by a high degree of commitment from the people involved.

Beyond the likely happiness that successful community living will bring, this will also make it easier to envisage design projects, as the people to whom these projects are addressed will then have a more perceptible, more circumscribed identity, and the collective intelligence will make it easier to recognize relevant designs from useless ones.

---