User:Stonewall979/sandbox

Commitment mechanisms can indeed be a good way to measure success in a Utopian Community because how committed a group is affects every other aspect of the community. Whether the problems facing a community are organization, getting work done or building relationships—commitment underlies the issues. For Kanter this mechanism is perfect since she places fault directly on the group itself for not banding together to solve their problems. Under Kanter’s framework if a group is determined enough they can accomplish their goals, and there is some evidence of this as the video we watched a few weeks ago over Black Bear Ranch Commune shows that members managed to fund their community by going from door to door of famous musicians and pleading for money. This idea that if a group is committed enough to its ideals they can achieve their goals is a solid measure to gauge success.

Upon examining other communities we studied this semester we see that commitment is a fair indicator of a group’s success. Drop City managed to construct its infamous domes by visiting junkyards and they managed to sustain themselves by scavenging in town (at least at times) however the community began to fail once the principal leaders left because they felt that the community had changed radically from its conception. This relates in part to the third question over external forces but the simple fact is that the community truly failed because the original leaders failed to commit fully at the beginning and implement processes that would ensure the purity of their vision of Drop City. Kanter supports this with the statement that “commitment…depends on the extent to which groups institute processes that increase the unity, coherence, and possible gratification of the group itself.”

This idea of commitment isn't merely an ideological commitment to the overreaching vision of the community but rather a practical realization that such goals can’t just be achieved without a considerable effort put into place.