User:Cew2/sandbox

Kanter argued that “commitment mechanisms” are a useful tool to understand and qualify the success of a commune. As she is a sociologist, it is a good measure with a few exceptions. Kanter is more focused on the way people lived together than the context or complex ideals that brought them together. Since Kanter’s definition of communal success has much to do with the longevity of the community versus anything else that they might accomplish, commitment is an important feature. These commitment mechanisms are important when understanding how people lived in these communities because they lay out six ways the people devote themselves to the communes and therefore help to explain some of the ways in which the commune interacts. For example, people must be invested in the idea of a commune and invested in the idea of its success to want to be become part of it and to stay devoted to it.

However, if people are not dedicated to a commune in these ways, there must be other reasons why they would be there. An example would be children of members of the commune. These children, if they were born into the commune, do not have much of a choice they can exercise as to whether or not they want to be a part it. This sometimes unwilling member would not have the same level of commitment as their parents and therefore, their interactions would have to be measured in other ways.

Kanter’s idea of renunciation is a difficult concept to fully realize. Although members of the group may sever ties with their family members, it may be difficult be completely separated from society. Unless the commune is fully self-sufficient, the members would still have interaction with people in the outside world. It also may not be possible for a commune to be completely geographically remote. The influence of the outside world could either alter the ideals that the group strives for or change their way of doing particular tasks. The outside world in this way would continue to influence the group members and possibly weaken the communal ties that have formed. She also does not account for any sort of positive interaction with the outside world, which could strengthen communal ties.

Kanter’s focus on commitment makes sense due to her sociological background, but she has several flaws in her ideas. These “commitment mechanisms” require fully consenting members. In the case of children born into the commune, they do not have an option and therefore might not follow these principles as their parents would. It is also difficult for a commune to fully renounce society, either because of geographical proximity or a need to interact with society to acquire goods for the commune. In a perfect commune, in which all members are fully consenting and the commune exists away from society, then Kanter’s principles could be used to greater effect.