Sociological thesis: Organizational forms of the "X ecovillage"

Here I share the link where you can read or download the (qualitative) thesis that allowed me to graduate as a Sociologist. 

ORGANIZATIONAL FORMS OF A CHILEAN ECOVILLAGE: THE "X COMMUNITY" CASE

shorturl.at/jnJR3

In addition to the concrete conclusions about the ecovillage researched, it emerged some theoretical proposals that might order some ambiguities of some sociological concepts. For example, the concepts of COMMUNITY and SOCIETY.

Besides proposing Four "Organizational Categories" (mechanic-community, organic-community, mechanic-society, organic-society), a new Sociological Theory proposal is raised:

THE ORGANIZATIONAL VECTORS THEORY

Graphic representation of the organizational vectors

The thesis has as Research Question:

- What characteristics of social organization does the X community display?

And as a Tentative Hypothesis:

- The social organization of the X ecovillage is characterized by horizontal cooperation and primary (affective) relationships.

And hence, its General Objective was:

- To characterize X Ecovillage according to its main forms of social organization.

And its Specific Objectives:

- Describe how collective decisions are taken on X Ecovillage.

- Describe the principal forms of economic and financial livelihood of the X Community.

- Describe the forms of social division of work in the X Ecovillage.

- Enunciate the level of security and freedom that individuals express when living in the X Community.

Lastly, for the ones that want to take a brief look without download it, I share you the Introduction and Problem Statement of the thesis, as also the Content (Index), besides some created concepts:

I- Introduction

The idea of community has been one of the most interest for the sociological analysis. From the origins of sociology, in the XIXth century, different authors (Durkheim, 1893/2011; Marx, 1867/2010; Tönnies, 1887/1947; Weber, 1922/2012) have theorized about it. So much so, that Nisbet (2010) affirms that in that century the community idea was the intellectual axis in which everything else revolved, adding that such a notion, within sociology, has been the one with the greatest reach and the most fundamental. Nonetheless, the community theme seems not to be clearly delimited yet – everywhere it can be found mentions about community, a lot of times without explicating what is understood by it (like in Bauman, 2003). In the face of this situation, it merges the problem of reviewing how important is or can be the community concept; if it is a term that was important only in the origins of sociology or if it is still relevant to analyze current social phenomena, and if it is still relevant, what is understood by it. 

The industrial progress with its subsequent labor (and lifestyles) mechanization has contributed to the longing for community for several social theorists: “We have the feeling [writes Zygmunt Bauman (2003)] that community is always something good” (p.7). However, with the supremacy of neoliberal capitalism, and what some authors called ‘the end of history’ (Fukuyama, 1990), it seems to be that alternatives to that model has extinguished. But on the other hand, just at the end of the Cold War, a global movement of ecological communities started to organize themselves: the Global Ecovillages Movement, movement which if diverse and incipient, is characterized by some authors (Gilman et al., 1995) like a “’third alternative’ in opposition to the ‘centralized communism’ and the ‘even more centralized’ multinational capitalism” (p.14). The previous is one of potential reasons of the importance of these experimental communities; they could be an alternative model to the hegemonic today, besides its preventive function of environmental degradation. However, to be open to the previous possibility, it is necessary to research if it is a real alternative model, and if it is, understand in which way this social model is different from the hegemonic ones. 

The present study proposes that the research of the main organizational forms of those ecological communities would allow to delimit the community concept, differentiating it from other ways of social organization. That is why this research has as main objective to understand how the social organizational forms are conformed in a particular kind of communities, the ecovillages, through qualitative methods on the ‘X Ecovillage’, in Chile. The present thesis proposes to characterize the social organizational forms of the X ecovillage, considering as dimensions its decision-making processes, economic finances, the social division of work and the notions of security and liberty.

II- Problem Statement

From the origins of sociology, the idea of community has been relevant, so much so that Nisbet (2019) affirms that on its origins all the sociological discipline hinged around that concept; being this way the broadest concept and the most fundamental. However, community is usually mentioned everywhere but without defining it clearly. This way community concept tends to be used in multiple ways: to refer from a locality, race, a nation or even the whole world, till civil organizations. In the face of this disjunctive, the present thesis questions itself: what is understood by community? How can it be clearly delimited? Is community found diluted in society? Does it exist any difference between these concepts? Or perhaps community is simply a micro-society?

Through history different authors has theorized about community. Since the beginnings of sociology, Tönnies (1887/1947) identified essential differences between community and society. However, over time, that dichotomy (with its diverse characteristics) was diluted: already thus in the theories of Émile Durkheim, the organic conception of community from Tönnies is extrapolated to society, while ancient communities would have a mechanic organization. Meanwhile on Tönnies communities would represent the organic and the societies the mechanic, on Durkheim, primitive societies (the community) would organise by a mechanic solidarity, and the modern societies by an organic solidarity. In the face of these apparently contradictory conceptualizations, it would be relevant to ask what is the fundamental characteristic of the organizational form called community? 

The previous seems to be important, especially considering that the classical community (i.e., the community how it was understood at sociology’s beginning) seems not to be completely extinguished with the advent of modernity. A renovated remainder[3] of those communities seems to be the ecovillages, which will be used as object of study to approach the communal phenomena. 

Ecovillages or ecological communities present themselves as a political form of organization alternative to the hegemonic models of capitalism and communism[4] (Gilman et al., 1995); however, it is important to know in which way. If not, lifestyles and practices that generate sense could be confused and mixed (as it seems that it has happened on the theorizations of community) with the same models that they look to transcend.

Concha (2010) understands ecovillages as a subculture in contrast to the hegemonic ways of social organization. Following Gramci’s analysis -among others-, the author points out how hegemony naturalizes signs, annulling critical viewpoints to the prevailing lifestyles, subordinating it through consensus, consent and passivity. Nonetheless it should not be understood that that process is diaphanous nor deliberatively reflected by individuals, because hegemonic ideology acts on an unconsciously way: “Through this process the way to organize the world seems universal and eternal. This sets a specific representational system that crystalizes on the common sense, which is ideologic and unconscious” (Concha, 2010: 28).

This way, through the ideologizing process of the hegemony the sense of reality -and therefore the political efforts to keep it (or change it)- would be naturalized (or kept invisible); due to -explained on Luhmannian language-:

Being communication, luhmannianly understood, “praxis of meaning”, all communication is built operatively making “distinctions to point out one of the sides and provide it with links” (Luhmann, 2007a:49), but, in the same act, the other side of the distinction put on operation keep without being designated, then unobserved. (Miranda, 2012: 14)

That is why is so important to comprehend what the community is, as well as the clear description of the organizational forms of ecovillages, thus saving the possible hegemonizing conceptual deformation[5]:

While by definition all hegemony is always dominating, never is on an absolute or exclusive way. This can ignore or isolate alternatives, but when these are significative, the decisive hegemonic function is control, transform or even incorporate them. (Concha, 2010: 27)

Hegemony that if not made visible, could limit the possibilities of divergent projects to the current status quo: “since hegemonies -and the institutions that accompany them- shape not only our preferences, but also what we believe that are our possibilities” (Concha, 2010: 97). 

---

[3] As it will be seen in the theoretical framework, the ecovillages differ in some aspects from the antique or traditional communities.

[4] To avoid future mistakes in sociological theory, from now on it will be used the apellative Marxist to designate the socio-historical projects that aspire to the state power (inspired on the theorization of Karl Max), as it was for example the case of the Soviet Union in the 20th century. In this way, it can be glimpsed that the starting point to analyze the community differs from that Marxist organizational version, that alludes to a political project of the mass societies.

[5] For example, Touraine (1997) points out that the English language spread weak uses of the term community (such as neighborhoods, religious or ethnic groups, but as long as they were represented before the public authorities); which would demonstrate the liberal interest in deforming the classic concept of community (as a self-regulated entity and relatively autonomous in a political level).

Contents

I- Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 4

II- Problem Statement .............................................................................................................. 5

III- Definition of research question, hypothesis and objectives .................................................... 7

IV- Theoretical Framework ........................................................................................................... 8

IV.1- Why the study of community? ................................................................................................... 8

IV.2- Society against community? ..................................................................................................... 10

Table of comparations between two ideal types of organization. ............................................... 14

IV.3- Security and liberty ................................................................................................................... 17

IV.4- Ecovillage .................................................................................................................................. 22

IV.5- X Community ............................................................................................................................ 28

V- Methods ................................................................................................................................ 29

V.1- Informants and unit of analysis ................................................................................................. 29

Informative table about the interviewees. ................................................................................... 31

V.2- Techniques of data collection .................................................................................................... 32

V.3- Data analysis .............................................................................................................................. 32

V.4- Operationalization ..................................................................................................................... 33

Thematic framework. .................................................................................................................... 33

Methodological summary chat. .................................................................................................... 34

VI- Results ................................................................................................................................. 35

Codes chart, Atlas.ti analysis. ........................................................................................................ 35

VI.1- The place................................................................................................................................... 37

VI.2- The organization ....................................................................................................................... 38

VI.3- Decision-making ....................................................................................................................... 39

VI.4- Economic distribution and subsistence .................................................................................... 42

VI.5- Social division of work .............................................................................................................. 47

VI.6- Beyond the division of work: Some findings ............................................................................ 49

VI.6.1- Individuation. ..................................................................................................................... 50

VI.6.2- Normativity. ....................................................................................................................... 51

VI.6.3- Mechanic solidarity and organic solidarity. ....................................................................... 52

VI.7- Security ..................................................................................................................................... 53

VI.8- Liberty ....................................................................................................................................... 59

VII- Discussion and conclusions .................................................................................................. 63

VII.1- The X Community: Communitarian park and ecovillage .........................................................63

VII.2- Organization ............................................................................................................................ 65

VII.3- Security .................................................................................................................................... 70

VII.4- Liberty ...................................................................................................................................... 72

VII.5- Society and community ........................................................................................................... 74

VII.6- Limitations of the present study and future lines of research ................................................ 77

VII.7- Final reflections ....................................................................................................................... 80

VII- References ........................................................................................................................... 82

XIX- Annexes .............................................................................................................................. 86

IXI.1- Organizational Vectors Theory ................................................................................................ 86

XIX.2- Photos ..................................................................................................................................... 90

Created concepts:

SOCIETY: 

Hierarchic mode of organization mainly based on instrumental rationality according to ends, with a competitive ethic that records agreements through formal and written proceedings using the juridical violence logic. 

For juridical violence logic is understood all the processes of decision-making based on an oligarchic center of power, where members hold positions of political power, acting according to idealism, self-interest or class consciousness, privileging a specific population sector, being another sector disadvantaged in great or less degree as direct or indirect consequence of those decisions. 

COMMUNITY:

A horizontal organizational mode mainly based on emotional connections, that generates a sensation of unity between its members, with a cooperative ethic that registers its agreements tacitly through the communicative rationality logic.

For communicative rationality logic it is understood all the decision-making processes are based on face-to-face relationships, where all the members participate equally in decision-making processes, having all interests in common, that is to say, acting with purpose unity and the intentionality of getting mutual consensus, resulting in agreements.

LAW:

Regulations created by a juridical elite (governmental political apparatus), structured in a formal written paper with a technical language of law, which is asserted by a specialized constabulary organism.

NORM:

Regulations created by a self-managed community (organized in communal assemblies), that although may be expressed in a written body, they mainly characterize themselves for being asserted by a moral communal body that self-regulates itself in a face-to-face relationship type, through sharing the same lifeworld.

ECOVILLAGE:

Intentional communities -recognized as ecovillage by the members of the community- based in the practice of permaculture, that integrates -at least in some degree- ecological, social and spiritual aspects in their communal way of life.

POLITICAL-INSTITUTIONAL ALIENATION:

The alienation suffered due to the political demands of the civil society would not find full representation on the highly bureaucratized institutions.

SPATIAL ALIENATION:

Frustration that is produced when seeing dispossessed or limited of the possibility of exerting a change in the immediate spatial environment (public-collective).

SOCIAL SECURITY:

Those mechanism of interpersonal trust that enable to foment sense of belonging, and that provide elements of certainty that order the world of the daily life, giving meaning to it.

FREEDOM OF LIFE:

Confidence level that mobilizes to the realization of the objectives and way of life chosen.

NATURAL CONSTRUCTION:

Type of ecological construction, similar to the permacultural one, but that -ideally- uses materials of the place, privileging to not pollute nor to destroy the environment over any other value (convivence, aesthetic, functionality, etc.); and that procures to be close to the antique methods (indigenous or ancestral) of construction (use of clay, wood, etc.).