Intentional Communities: The pursuit of a modern utopia

Since a few threads have already popped up on Philosophy about individuals "escaping" society, I figured it was high time I started this one—focusing on how entire groups try to make that break. I’ve been sitting on this idea for a while.

First off, sorry if my wording is a bit clunky... I wasn't sure if I should stick to the literal "intentional communities" or just call them "utopian communities."
But let's be real—using the word "utopian" right out of the gate just triggers all those old prejudices—you know, the whole anarchist, hippie commune, religious cult vibe.

Still, maybe a little "preconception" is exactly what we need to get people talking... 😁 ... though if anyone has a better title for this, go ahead and throw it out there.
"Intentional communities" are a wild, diverse bunch, and yeah, they definitely include the types that most people look at sideways.
Anyway, trying to find a somewhat objective take on this, I stumbled upon this article...

Utopian Struggle : Preconceptions and Realities of Intentional Communities

So, here we have the biases versus the actual facts regarding these groups...

The author, Bill Metcalf, actually knows his stuff—he’s spent decades living in these setups and has been researching and writing about them for 30 years.
He’s looked into over a hundred of them to figure out why some work and others crash and burn, digging into a history where the same damn mistakes keep getting repeated over and over again.

Here is his definition...

An intentional community:

A group of five or more people, coming from different families or social circles, who voluntarily join forces to tackle specific social issues or shortcomings. They’re looking for a life outside the "mainstream" by adopting consciously designed—and usually pretty well-thought-out—social and cultural alternatives.

To reach their goals, they share major parts of their lives. Members carry this "we-consciousness," seeing themselves as a permanent, distinct group that is, in many ways, superior to the society they left behind.

Eco-village:

An intentional community focused on environmental sustainability alongside social justice, equality, peace, and so on.

So, what’s your take on this whole phenomenon?

I mentioned the Ithaca Eco-village in the US and an article about them on another thread... and one user basically just trashed them as a bunch of ridiculous losers after reading about them.

Look, I get why people react that way... but is the media mostly just pushing a negative or totally unrealistic image of these people?

In my experience, these kinds of collectives mostly just attract eccentrics and folks carrying a whole lot of "emotional baggage." For them to actually work long-term, you really have to make exceptions to that rule.

Let’s be real: living with anyone at any point in life isn't easy. It takes a massive amount of tolerance for different personalities and emotional stability, which most people just don't have. You can see this clearly on internet forums, where people end up fighting over even the most neutral topics every single day.

I’m pretty skeptical about these "carefully planned and well-thought-out" alternatives. I mean, communism was also carefully planned and well-thought-out, and we all know how much of a disaster those attempts turned out to be in practice.

On the flip side, some people truly find their groove living that way. So, what can you say? If someone wants to go for it, more power to them.

Gerald Jackson48 said:In my experience, these kinds of collectives mostly just attract eccentrics and folks carrying a whole lot of "emotional baggage." For them to actually work long-term, you really have to make exceptions to that rule.

Let’s be real: living with anyone at any point in life isn't easy. It takes a massive amount of tolerance for different personalities and emotional stability, which most people just don't have. You can see this clearly on internet forums, where people end up fighting over even the most neutral topics every single day.

I’m pretty skeptical about these "carefully planned and well-thought-out" alternatives. I mean, communism was also carefully planned and well-thought-out, and we all know how much of a disaster those attempts turned out to be in practice.

On the flip side, some people truly find their groove living that way. So, what can you say? If someone wants to go for it, more power to them.

Not necessarily... sure they exist, but in the broadest sense—like in Eco-villages—they’re actually the minority.

Living with anyone at any given moment isn't easy—it takes a massive amount of tolerance for differences and emotional stability, which most people just don't have. You see it all the time on internet forums where people end up fighting over basically nothing.

For sure. Some communities actually figure out how to manage conflict—either through charismatic leaders or some kind of democratic consensus-building.
Those are the ones that actually last... provided they actually have a vision... a clear purpose and something to offer the members who stay.
The author compares their "success rate" to tech startups... though I guess nobody's questioning their actual point.

I'm skeptical of these "carefully designed and well-thought-out" alternatives. Communism was "carefully designed and well-thought-out" too, and we all know how that turned out in practice.

I get that it sounds like some "drawing board society" and the communism comparisons are hard to dodge... but there's a huge difference between joining a group voluntarily and being "forced" into one against your will.
Plus, the size of these groups (maybe a couple hundred people max) allows for a totally different management style—like direct democracy—than what you'd find in a country.

On the other hand, some people just find themselves at home in that lifestyle, so hey, whatever floats your boat.

Yeah, it really just comes down to what you want and what you're into...

I was just scrolling through the BBC the other day when I stumbled upon this pretty fascinating piece about one of those "intentional communities":
https://www.bbc.com/news/in-pictures-45046023

Gerald Jackson48 said:In my experience, these kinds of collectives mostly just attract eccentrics and folks carrying a whole lot of "emotional baggage." For them to actually work long-term, you really have to make exceptions to that rule.

Let’s be real: living with anyone at any point in life isn't easy. It takes a massive amount of tolerance for different personalities and emotional stability, which most people just don't have. You can see this clearly on internet forums, where people end up fighting over even the most neutral topics every single day.

I’m pretty skeptical about these "carefully planned and well-thought-out" alternatives. I mean, communism was also carefully planned and well-thought-out, and we all know how much of a disaster those attempts turned out to be in practice.

On the flip side, some people truly find their groove living that way. So, what can you say? If someone wants to go for it, more power to them.

True, especially when you talk about communal living. In the US, the only media-exposed experiment of that sort I remember was "gold coin." Out of the ten people living in that rented house, I only met three of them after the "experiment" ended, and yeah, they were pretty quirky. But there’s another factor at play here—this way of life doesn't just attract those types of people; after a while, all that internal pandemonium that was suppressed by social norms starts bubbling to the surface. That might be useful in a therapeutic setting, but in everyday practice, it's just chaos. 😁

I know from firsthand experience. I wouldn't do it again.

Amanda Jackson5 said:I was just scrolling through the BBC the other day when I stumbled upon this pretty fascinating piece about one of those "intentional communities":
https://www.bbc.com/news/in-pictures-45046023

This could honestly work as an eco-village. It’s got real potential. The foundation is already there—or at least, it used to be. 🤔 Regarding the "Blatuša" project, the feedback from those who actually lived through it is pretty split. For some, it was an absolutely life-changing experience, but others felt like the whole thing eventually devolved into something resembling a cult, mostly because the founder's ego just started to overshadow everything else. That said, maybe we're just looking at the growing pains of the first generation? The core concept itself still has real potential, even if you tried to implement it in the middle of nowhere in the rural US.

Joseph Bailey41 said:True, especially when you talk about communal living. In the US, the only media-exposed experiment of that sort I remember was "gold coin." Out of the ten people living in that rented house, I only met three of them after the "experiment" ended, and yeah, they were pretty quirky. But there’s another factor at play here—this way of life doesn't just attract those types of people; after a while, all that internal pandemonium that was suppressed by social norms starts bubbling to the surface. That might be useful in a therapeutic setting, but in everyday practice, it's just chaos. 😁

I know from firsthand experience. I wouldn't do it again.

Can you elaborate on this "internal pandemonium"?

Joseph Bailey41 said:This could honestly work as an eco-village. It’s got real potential. The foundation is already there—or at least, it used to be. 🤔 Regarding the "Blatuša" project, the feedback from those who actually lived through it is pretty split. For some, it was an absolutely life-changing experience, but others felt like the whole thing eventually devolved into something resembling a cult, mostly because the founder's ego just started to overshadow everything else. That said, maybe we're just looking at the growing pains of the first generation? The core concept itself still has real potential, even if you tried to implement it in the middle of nowhere in the rural US.

I met a guy who spent some time at Blatuša; he brought it up in passing, and I tried to dig a little deeper, but he wasn't really feeling it—I got the vibe he wasn't exactly happy there.

True, maybe it's just "growing pains." Eco-villages usually get mentioned in a pretty positive light over in Europe.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Can you elaborate on this "internal pandemonium"?

I met a guy who spent some time at Blatuša; he brought it up in passing, and I tried to dig a little deeper, but he wasn't really feeling it—I got the vibe he wasn't exactly happy there.

True, maybe it's just "growing pains." Eco-villages usually get mentioned in a pretty positive light over in Europe.

It’s like that old saying goes: "Hell is other people." When you pack a bunch of different personalities into one house—unless they’re actual blood relatives—they eventually start getting on each other's nerves and digging up all sorts of subconscious baggage. It was especially messy with my group back then, since we were all unconventional twenty-somethings. Everyone would bring friends over for a night or two, someone would bring certain substances into the house, or someone would show up under the influence because, well, it was a "free zone." That casual "hey" quickly turned into "sweetie, what did you take?" 🙄 (Just a bit of context—this was the late nineties, so you could find just about anything on the streets back then.)

The older, more serious crowd I met didn't talk much about why everything was falling apart, but it was obvious they were driving each other crazy and simply couldn't live under the same roof anymore. One guy, who was pretty high-profile (a culture creator, social entrepreneur, life coach, and generalist), kept insisting that the group dynamic was failing because two other people I knew—a married couple—stuck too close together. To me, that sounded like total nonsense. All those communication techniques used to force group bonding, or the constant insistence on reaching a consensus for completely trivial decisions... honestly, the whole thing felt exhausting and forced. I think I would have been screaming and running for the exit after just two days. It had a bit of a cult-like vibe, even if there wasn't a real spiritual connection between them, at least from what I could tell.

In my opinion, these utopian circles often suffer from too many ego battles, power struggles over status, petty fights over government grants, and a sort of rigid, dogmatic mentality. It's all quite far from being a utopia.

It’s a bummer... but honestly, that’s just the reality when you're living under one roof.

I mean, I'm pretty sure people actually pay attention to these kinds of issues...

Balancing privacy and community with design in cohousing Quote : Architect Laura Fitch

Architect Laura Fitch describes cohousing communities as “privacy within your home and community at your doorstep.”

Cooperative living setups have been around in various cultures for centuries. but The Concept took a New form in Denmark in The early 1970 sa with The establishment of sættedammen, a cohousing community where folks keep their own private space but share stuff like the kitchen, laundry, and play areas. The People Who Live There ara responsible for cleaning and maintaining shared spaces and plan community activities such as shared dinners.
........................................
If you had to explain cohousing to a complete stranger, how would you put it? “The design process and The Management process ara things that actually mix The community together, so that you have to get to know each other in order to make these decisions.” — Architect Laura Fitch

It’s all about the community vibe. Everyone wants community in their Life, but they still want that privacy we've all grown used to inside our own homes. [Cohousing] isn't like those old-school communes—it actually prizes independence while still pushing for cooperation and togetherness. Generally People Come together , They sort of self-form around The friends Who start The idea and publicized The idea , but typically They ara , the futur residents ara involved in the design process.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Not necessarily... sure they exist, but in the broadest sense—like in Eco-villages—they’re actually the minority.

Living with anyone at any given moment isn't easy—it takes a massive amount of tolerance for differences and emotional stability, which most people just don't have. You see it all the time on internet forums where people end up fighting over basically nothing.

For sure. Some communities actually figure out how to manage conflict—either through charismatic leaders or some kind of democratic consensus-building.
Those are the ones that actually last... provided they actually have a vision... a clear purpose and something to offer the members who stay.
The author compares their "success rate" to tech startups... though I guess nobody's questioning their actual point.

I'm skeptical of these "carefully designed and well-thought-out" alternatives. Communism was "carefully designed and well-thought-out" too, and we all know how that turned out in practice.

I get that it sounds like some "drawing board society" and the communism comparisons are hard to dodge... but there's a huge difference between joining a group voluntarily and being "forced" into one against your will.
Plus, the size of these groups (maybe a couple hundred people max) allows for a totally different management style—like direct democracy—than what you'd find in a country.

On the other hand, some people just find themselves at home in that lifestyle, so hey, whatever floats your boat.

Yeah, it really just comes down to what you want and what you're into...

This could be the kicker. Some data suggests it sits right around 10 percent.

Joseph Bailey41 said:It’s like that old saying goes: "Hell is other people." When you pack a bunch of different personalities into one house—unless they’re actual blood relatives—they eventually start getting on each other's nerves and digging up all sorts of subconscious baggage. It was especially messy with my group back then, since we were all unconventional twenty-somethings. Everyone would bring friends over for a night or two, someone would bring certain substances into the house, or someone would show up under the influence because, well, it was a "free zone." That casual "hey" quickly turned into "sweetie, what did you take?" 🙄 (Just a bit of context—this was the late nineties, so you could find just about anything on the streets back then.)

The older, more serious crowd I met didn't talk much about why everything was falling apart, but it was obvious they were driving each other crazy and simply couldn't live under the same roof anymore. One guy, who was pretty high-profile (a culture creator, social entrepreneur, life coach, and generalist), kept insisting that the group dynamic was failing because two other people I knew—a married couple—stuck too close together. To me, that sounded like total nonsense. All those communication techniques used to force group bonding, or the constant insistence on reaching a consensus for completely trivial decisions... honestly, the whole thing felt exhausting and forced. I think I would have been screaming and running for the exit after just two days. It had a bit of a cult-like vibe, even if there wasn't a real spiritual connection between them, at least from what I could tell.

In my opinion, these utopian circles often suffer from too many ego battles, power struggles over status, petty fights over government grants, and a sort of rigid, dogmatic mentality. It's all quite far from being a utopia.

That's pretty much it. Even blood relatives fight when they're stuck together, so you can imagine what happens with strangers. You see this play out on screen all the time in reality shows like Big Brother, farma, or whatever other junk is on TV. Conflict is constant, and it happens fast.

Sure, those shows pick colorful characters because viewers would get bored without the drama, but it still says something about the general state of the human psyche.

Group therapy attempts like that are great in theory, but old habits die hard, and people rarely change who they really are.

Gerald Jackson48 said:In my experience, these kinds of collectives mostly just attract eccentrics and folks carrying a whole lot of "emotional baggage." For them to actually work long-term, you really have to make exceptions to that rule.

Let’s be real: living with anyone at any point in life isn't easy. It takes a massive amount of tolerance for different personalities and emotional stability, which most people just don't have. You can see this clearly on internet forums, where people end up fighting over even the most neutral topics every single day.

I’m pretty skeptical about these "carefully planned and well-thought-out" alternatives. I mean, communism was also carefully planned and well-thought-out, and we all know how much of a disaster those attempts turned out to be in practice.

On the flip side, some people truly find their groove living that way. So, what can you say? If someone wants to go for it, more power to them.

Not to mention the total chaos...😁
Federation of Damanhur Wikipedia
Short video

I honestly don't get how anyone can be so detached from reality that they'd seriously consider a utopian society. We evolved in an environment that is the polar opposite of utopia, developing needs and impulses that will inevitably result in one person's happiness coming at the expense of another's. As we find more areas of life where we are equal, the importance of those areas where we can still differentiate ourselves only grows. I think this mechanism is beautifully illustrated in this scene, where something as trivial as a business card turns into a tool for competition.

We are condemned to an eternal struggle... even if it's just against windmills. 🙂

Gerald Jackson48 said:This could be the kicker. Some data suggests it sits right around 10 percent.

That's pretty much it. Even blood relatives fight when they're stuck together, so you can imagine what happens with strangers. You see this play out on screen all the time in reality shows like Big Brother, farma, or whatever other junk is on TV. Conflict is constant, and it happens fast.

Sure, those shows pick colorful characters because viewers would get bored without the drama, but it still says something about the general state of the human psyche.

Group therapy attempts like that are great in theory, but old habits die hard, and people rarely change who they really are.

When building these kinds of communities, we should probably apply a lean model—basically, just copy whatever works. I can't quite wrap my head around how to reformat those two triads I remember from hanging out with the startup crowd (hipster, hacker, hustler and timing, focus system)), but there might be value in viewing these communities as 'consumable goods.' Think of them as something not necessarily intended to last forever:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Autonomous_Zone

Oh, and it definitely needs a user-friendly 'don't make me think' interface. Something like Damanhur. 🤣

Betty Fowler said:I honestly don't get how anyone can be so detached from reality that they'd seriously consider a utopian society. We evolved in an environment that is the polar opposite of utopia, developing needs and impulses that will inevitably result in one person's happiness coming at the expense of another's. As we find more areas of life where we are equal, the importance of those areas where we can still differentiate ourselves only grows. I think this mechanism is beautifully illustrated in this scene, where something as trivial as a business card turns into a tool for competition.

We are condemned to an eternal struggle... even if it's just against windmills. 🙂

I wouldn't say that. We have actually taken the first steps toward ending this cycle—we’ve identified the conflict itself and started looking toward cooperation as the alternative. Naturally, there is still a significant road ahead of us, provided we don't tear ourselves apart before we get there.

Sam Martinez9 said:I wouldn't say that. We have actually taken the first steps toward ending this cycle—we’ve identified the conflict itself and started looking toward cooperation as the alternative. Naturally, there is still a significant road ahead of us, provided we don't tear ourselves apart before we get there.

We actually "found" cooperation long before we ever stepped down from the trees. How can you have cooperation without the struggle to begin with?

Betty Fowler said:We actually "found" cooperation long before we ever stepped down from the trees. How can you have cooperation without the struggle to begin with?

Of course we were cooperating even before we evolved into Homo sapiens. I see cooperation without conflict everywhere I look—at my job, within my own family, in other people's homes, or even just sitting on a Greyhound bus...

Sam Martinez9 said:Of course we were cooperating even before we evolved into Homo sapiens. I see cooperation without conflict everywhere I look—at my job, within my own family, in other people's homes, or even just sitting on a Greyhound bus...

True, but isn't that cooperation always serving a larger struggle against a specific problem? Cooperation within a family ensures its members are better positioned compared to others. At work, you're competing with colleagues for a better role, your company is vying against other corporations, and your country is competing with other nations on the global stage. And so on, and so forth...

Betty Fowler said:True, but isn't that cooperation always serving a larger struggle against a specific problem? Cooperation within a family ensures its members are better positioned compared to others. At work, you're competing with colleagues for a better role, your company is vying against other corporations, and your country is competing with other nations on the global stage. And so on, and so forth...

On one hand, I see your point—cooperation and competition are often tightly intertwined, essentially packaged together. However, there is also a form of cooperation that doesn't stem from underlying conflict, though that largely depends on how rational the community is.

If a small community faces a challenge, it can be resolved through common sense, without any friction, posturing, tug-of-war, or fighting... they simply choose the solution that serves the collective good best.

In my line of work, everyone has their niche, and there’s no need to fight for someone else's territory. My company holds its own space in the American market, and I actually collaborate with colleagues who run firms in the same industry. Competition is literally right at my doorstep, yet I’ve maintained excellent working relationships with them for decades. They have their client base, and I have mine... neither side has any interest in poaching from the other.

Sam Martinez9 said:On one hand, I see your point—cooperation and competition are often tightly intertwined, essentially packaged together. However, there is also a form of cooperation that doesn't stem from underlying conflict, though that largely depends on how rational the community is.

If a small community faces a challenge, it can be resolved through common sense, without any friction, posturing, tug-of-war, or fighting... they simply choose the solution that serves the collective good best.

In my line of work, everyone has their niche, and there’s no need to fight for someone else's territory. My company holds its own space in the American market, and I actually collaborate with colleagues who run firms in the same industry. Competition is literally right at my doorstep, yet I’ve maintained excellent working relationships with them for decades. They have their client base, and I have mine... neither side has any interest in poaching from the other.

That’s just one part of it. The second factor is the environment the community lives in. If things are tough—whether due to nature or just the way society is perceived—that pressure tends to pull people together and encourage them to work as one. But once you cross that line where the surroundings stop being just "difficult" and start feeling genuinely threatening... that's when things get messy. You see social breakdowns, or the group shifts back toward more "traditional" ways of organizing themselves to survive.

Joseph Bailey41 said:That’s just one part of it. The second factor is the environment the community lives in. If things are tough—whether due to nature or just the way society is perceived—that pressure tends to pull people together and encourage them to work as one. But once you cross that line where the surroundings stop being just "difficult" and start feeling genuinely threatening... that's when things get messy. You see social breakdowns, or the group shifts back toward more "traditional" ways of organizing themselves to survive.

I agree.

Though I would argue we need to include the social landscape in that definition of "environment." Capitalism, unfortunately, is designed to foster conflict—whether it's the cutthroat competition in the market or the internal power struggles within a corporation—and it's incredibly hard to resist that pull.

I’ve actually had the chance to observe the *evolution* of one young woman who, over the course of a decade, transformed from a genuinely kind person into a total predator who crushes anyone in her path. She works in an environment like that, at a major firm like State Farm, where everything is measured by metrics and compensation is tied strictly to performance. And in that world, you can only succeed if you step on whoever is beneath you to get ahead. It's chilling.