Utopian Studies

Scholarly books of edited readings depend on the ability of the editor, the range of topics and authors, and the breadth versus depth with which the subject is approached. Too much breadth results in a platitudinous mishmash, while too much depth usually lacks context. In this work, the editor, Tim Miller of the University of Kansas, strikes a reasonable compromise. Not all chapters will be of equal interest to any reader, but all are germane to the topic.

This book has thirteen chapters, seven written by North Americans, three by U.K. residents, two by Europeans, and one by an Israeli. Eight of these authors are current or ex-members of “spiritual and visionary” communities, three are academics, and two are doctoral students. The chapters range from Henry Near’s study comparing Israeli kibbutzim with several non-Israeli contemporary intentional communities to insider accounts of Damanhur (Italy), Tamera (Portugal), The Farm (U.S.), The Family International (U.S.), Camphill (Europe), and Brahma Kumaris Retreat Centre (U.K.), as well as overview articles looking at spiritually oriented intentional communities in the United Kingdom and United States. Most accounts are quite positive, but the story of the Manjushri Centre, U.K., is very critical. That is, perhaps, to be expected since we are ominously told that the author, an ex-member, “supports survivors” of the group. [End Page 638]

These chapters include humorous and sometimes troubling accounts, such as that Gilbert Bourdin (aka) Hamsah Manarah, founder of Mandarom, the “holy city of Aumisme,” modestly crowned himself as the “Cosmoplanetary Messiah.” Later, he became reclusive and would use a “golden key” to lock himself into his bedroom, where he would “ward off demons who threatened to destroy the earth” (29–31). Sexism, or “gender bias,” within Brahma Kumaris Retreat Centre, where women are “sweeter, gentler, more considerate and homely,” is justified, we are told, because it “helps women overcome any culturally acquired timidity … whilst men are assisted in the development of humility” (52–56). A third example is the attempted justification for a “spiritual” leader having sex with nuns in a group sworn to chastity (79).

And there are others that are anything but funny. Aryan Nation members believe that males should “fight to death to keep and mate with their females. … The overpowering male sex drive must be channeled toward possession of females, as well as … territory and power which are necessary to keep them” (210).

How exactly a small group of people living in an intentional community with idealistic intentions expect to “save the world” differs. One author believes that mind shapes the material world, hence utopia can be created through group “mind” practices such as meditation (62). A member of Tamera, a “mini utopia of decentralized solar energy” (93), sees its social and environmental practices being a self-evidently superior model, which, through systems theory, is sufficient reason for others to follow it (83–87). Communal living at Camphill is a model that will percolate across the globe even if members cease to practice—a sort of cultural osmosis (118).

While I enjoyed this book, and learned a great deal from reading it, I have a couple of small criticisms. First, the editor gives no explanation of why these authors and groups were selected. Some groups such as Tamera, The Farm, and Damanhur are obvious inclusions for a book about “spiritual and visionary communities out to save the world”—but, then, why not also include Findhorn Foundation, ZEGG, and Auroville? Also, is it academically wise to chose someone “in charge of legal and media affairs” (viii) for The Family International to write objectively about them? Is it wise to expect someone who “supports NKT survivors” (ix) to write about that group? Perhaps it is, but the editor never explains. Also, no reason is given for the inclusion of the final chapter, by Henry Near, which does not really fit given...