User:Jliuhist423/sandbox

Kanter “lumps” utopian communes into just two black-and-white categories: Successful or unsuccessful. At the beginning and then throughout this reading, Kanter’s definition of “success” is ultimately based on the longevity of the commune. She asserts that “the Shakers, Amana, and Oneida. . . are among nine ‘successful’ nineteenth century utopian communities, lasting thirty-three years or more. They can be contrasted with twenty-one ‘unsuccessful’ groups lasting less than sixteen years. . .” (64).

Kanter attempts to make a save on this definition of success by attributing longevity to commitment. Members need to get work done, but without coercion. Close relationships must be built but without exclusivity. Commitment ties self-interest to social requirements (66), which works for a communal society. Kanter split “commitment” into three different types (69): instrumental, affective, and moral. She believes that all utopian communities had at least one of these types, which affected what type of commune it was.

Sacrifice is, apparently, also essential to a strong commune (76). Sacrifice does occur on a more micro-community level, like a family.

Throughout everything Kanter describes, she believes most solid communities had harder requirements or rules, like abstinence or needing permission to leave the community temporarily (85). Kanter emphasizes control again, saying, “The most enduring communes were also the most centralized and the most tightly controlled” (129).