BUILDING RESISTANCE FROM HOME: ECOVILLAGE AT ITHACA AS A
MODEL OF SUSTAINABLE LIVING
by
DlANA MICHELLE FISCHETTI
A THESIS
Presented to the Department of Geography
and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Master of Arts
September 2008
"Building Resistance from Home: EcoVillage at Ithaca as a Model of Sustainable
Living," a thesis prepared by Diana Michelle Fischetti in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the Master of Arts degree in the Department of Geography. This thesis
has been approved and accepted by:
Shaul Cohen, Chair of the Examining Com)lrlttee
.,.".,.,,'/
11
Committee in Charge:
Accepted by:
Shaul Cohen, Chair
Peter Walker
Dean of the Graduate School
© 2008 Diana Michelle Fischetti
111
IV
An Abstract of the Thesis of
Diana Michelle Fischetti
in the Department of Geography
for the degree of
to be taken
Master of Arts
September 2008
Title: BUILDING RESISTANCE FROM HOME: ECOVILLAGE AT ITHACA AS A
MODEL OF SUSTAINABLE LIVING
Approved: ~ ICohen
Because of the personal, social, economic, and environmental impacts of material
consumption, resistance is afoot. The creation of new places is a tool used by those
resisting the negative aspects of consumer culture. One example is the ecovillage: an
intentional community whose members strive to live in a socially and environmentally
sustainable manner, to practice voluntary simplicity, and to cultivate meaning, life
satisfaction, and fulfillment. This research involves a case study of EcoVillage at Ithaca,
located in New York, the goal of which is to create a model of sustainable living that is
appealing to mainstream America, reduce the ecological footprint of inhabitants and
increase meaningful relationships within the community. Through its educational mission
and accompanying outreach, EcoVillage at Ithaca models an alternative to middle-class,
mainstream American culture. EcoVillage at Ithaca's impact beyond the lives ofthe
individual residents demonstrates its effectiveness as a space of resistance to consumer
society.
v
VI
CURRICULUM VITAE
NAME OF AUTHOR: Diana Michelle Fischetti
PLACE OF BIRTH: Boston, Massachusetts
DATE OF BIRTH: April 19, 1976
GRADUATE AND UNDERGRADUATE SCHOOLS ATTENDED:
University of Oregon, Eugene
University of Colorado, Boulder
Boston University
DEGREES AWARDED:
Master of Arts, [Geography, September 2008], University of Oregon
Master of Arts, [Environmental Studies, September 2008], University of Oregon
Bachelor of Arts, [Environmental Studies, December 2000],
University of Colorado
AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST:
Nonprofit Management Certificate, [Department of Planning, Public Policy and
Management, September 2008], University of Oregon
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
Outreach Program Manager, Science Applications International Corporation
(SAIC), 1 month (current employment)
LEED™ Education Program Project Coordinator and Graduate Teaching Fellow,
Office of Academic Affairs, University of Oregon, 1 academic year
Vll
Graduate Teaching Fellow, Department of Geography and
Environmental Studies Program, University of Oregon, 2 academic years
Editorial Assistant, Journal ofSedimentary Research, Society for Sedimentary
Geology, 1 year
National Science Foundation Research Fellow, Department of Geography,
University of Colorado, 1 academic year
Undergraduate Teaching Assistant, Department of Geography, University of
Colorado, 1 academic year
Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program Fellow, Department of
Geography, University of Colorado, 1 academic year
GRANTS, AWARDS AND HONORS:
Graduate Teaching Fellowship, Office of Academic Affairs, University of
Oregon, 2007
Summer Research Award, "Building Resistance from Home: EcoVillage at Ithaca
as a Model of Sustainable Living", Department of Geography, University
of Oregon, 2007
Coeta and Donald Barker Fellowship Summer Research Award, "Building
Resistance from Home: EcoVillage at Ithaca as a Model of Sustainable
Living", Environmental Studies Program, University of Oregon, 2006 and
2007
Coeta and Donald Barker Research Fellowship, "Building Resistance from Home:
EcoVillage at Ithaca as a Model of Sustainable Living", Environmental
Studies Program, University of Oregon, 2006
Graduate Teaching Fellowship, Department of Geography, University of
Oregon, 2005
Graduate Teaching Fellowship, Environmental Studies Program, University of
Oregon, 2005
Gamma Theta Upsilon, International Geographic Honor Society, 2005
V111
National Science Foundation Research Fellowship, Department of Geography,
University of Colorado, 200 I
Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program Fellowship, Department of
Geography, University of Colorado, 2000
Dean's Scholarship Award, University of Colorado, 7 awards during 1997 - 2000
Phi Beta Kappa, Honor Society, 1999
Golden Key Honor Society, 1998
PUBLICATIONS:
Mayo, Joseph and Diana Fischetti. 2008. "The White Stag Goes Green:
Renovation ofUO's new home in Portland earns LEED gold." Bulletin:
School ofArchitecture and Allied Arts: 2.
Fischetti, Diana. 2008. "The White Stag Block: University of Oregon's New
Green Home in Portland." The Ecotone: The Journal ofEnvironmental
Studies: 35-36.
Cheng, Nancy, Jessica Engeman, Cody Evers, Diana Fischetti, Ashley Garrett,
Bethany Johnson, Casey Kleinhenz, Ray Neff, Dawn O'Connor, Jolyn
Overton, Jason Owens, Zach Rose, John Wallace, and Michael Wilson.
2008. "Case Study of The White Stag Block."
Barry, Coeylen, Rebecca Briggs, Bari Doeffinger, Diana Fischetti, Meghan
Murphy, Peterson, Matt, and Rebecca Silver. 2007. University ofOregon
Campus Sustainability Assessment.
Fischetti, Diana. 2007a. "Book Review of The Coldest Crucible: Arctic
Exploration and American Culture." Western Association ofMap
Libraries Information Bulletin 38:83.
-. 2007b. "Real Simplicity or Simply Solicitation? An Analysis ofReal Simple
Magazine." The Ecotone: The Journal ofEnvironmental Studies: 14-19.
IX
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to express sincere appreciation to the Department of Geography and
the Environmental Studies Program at the University of Oregon for providing rigorous
programs of study and a supportive environment in which to pursue them. I would also like
to appreciate the Department of Geography, the Environmental Studies Program, and the
Coeta and Donald Barker Fellowship for providing me with funding, in the form of both
Graduate Teaching Fellowships and research awards. My advisors, Associate Professors
Shaul Cohen, Peter Walker, and Nancy Cheng, are also deserving of hearty thanks for their
guidance, encouragement, and for challenging me. The residents of EcoVillage at Ithaca,
and especially those who allowed me to interview them, deserve deep gratitude. These
residents include: Elan, Kelly, Will, Steve, Liz, Laura, Phebe, Lucy, and Harry. Last but
not least, I wish to express my deep gratitude for the indispensable love and support of my
friends and family, including Andy Polanchek, Linda Fischetti, Michael Fischetti, Marilyn
Winkleby, Megan Lawrence, Lee Pera, Amy Tolliver, and Geisel.
xThis thesis is dedicated to the idealists, who may be accused of being na"ive; to the
change-makers, who may be told their pursuits are futile; to the unaware, who may need to
be told of another way; and to the pessimists, who may need to be shown rather than told.
Xl
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
L INTRODUCTION 1
Ecovillages 4
EcoVillage at Ithaca 5
Research Questions and Answers 7
Capitalism and Consumerism 9
Resistance 11
Insights 12
II. LINKING CAPTIALSIM, CONSUMERISM, WELL-BEING, AND
VOLUNTARY SIMPLICITy.................................................................... 14
Economic Impacts 15
The Development of Underdevelopment 16
Dependency Theory and World Systems Theory.................................... 17
Combined and Uneven Development 19
Environmental Impacts 21
Personal, Social, and Cultural Impacts 22
Commodity Fetishism and Alienation......... 23
Materialism and the Search for Well-Being 25
Voluntary Simplicity 29
Conclusion.................................................................................................... 31
------------------ --
xu
Chapter Page
III. SPACE, PLACE, AND RESISTANCE 32
Resistance 36
Place and Resistance 39
Geographies of Resistance 40
Domination versus Resistance 41
Entangled Domination and Resistance 43
Autonomous Geographies 44
Conclusion .. 46
IV. "THE AMERICAN DREAM", INTENTIONAL COMMUNITIES,
COHOUSING, AND ECOVILLAGES 48
"The American Dream" 53
Consequences of "the American Dream" 61
Intentional Communities 63
History of Intentional Communities and Shared Housing 68
Cohousing 74
Characteristics of Cohousing 76
Benefits of Cohousing 80
History of Cohousing 82
Ecovillages ;............................................ 88
Defining Ecovillages 89
Characteristics of Ecovillages 95
Challenges Faced by Ecovillages 100
History of the Ecovillage Movement 102
The Ecovillage as a Model 104
X111
Chapter Page
V. METHODS: A CASE STUDY OF ECOVILLAGE AT ITHACA 107
Qualitative Methods 108
EcoVillage at Ithaca .. III
History 114
Design Characteristics 125
Outreach and Education 138
Data Collection 141
Participant Observation 142
Semi-Structured Interviews 145
VI. RESULTS 147
Why Move to EcoVillage at Ithaca? 148
Thoughts on American Culture 151
Consumerism 151
Collapse 153
EcoVillage as a Model 155
Educational Mission 156
Building a Sustainable Culture 158
Maintaining a Sustainable Culture 160
Changing Behavior 161
Reduced Material Consumption 164
Residents' Critiques ofEcoVillage 168
Diversity........... 170
Mainstream Orientation........................................................................... 171
Affordability 172
EcoVillage Is Not Sustainable Enough 175
Making a Difference 176
XIV
Chapter Page
VII. CONCLUSIONS 180
Resistance 183
Resistance, Space, and Place 185
EcoVillage at Ithaca as a Model................... 188
Community and Behavior 192
Spatial Change Alone Cannot Make Social Change 194
Material Consumption at EcoVillage 198
Consumption as Resistance? 199
Mainstream Orientation 201
Activism 201
EcoVillage at Ithaca as a Space ofResistance 203
Social Movements 207
NaIve Calculus 209
Conclusions 211
APPENDIX: SAMPLE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 213
BIBLIOGRAPHY 217
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure .Page
1. EcoVillage at Ithaca is located in New York. 112
2. View ofFROG 117
3. An aerial photo ofEcoVillage at Ithaca ~.............................................. 120
4. SONG as viewed from the CRUX 122
5. An early site plan of EcoVillage at Ithaca 124
6. FROG pedestrian street 127
7. Playground in SONG 128
8. Sauna shared by all residents 128
9. SONG Common House 129
10. FROG Common House 130
11. FROG residents sharing a common meal 131
12. Interior of a passive solar FROG home 133
13. Strawbale duplex homes in SONG 136
14. Passive solar, solar hot water, and solar photovoltaics (PVs) in SONG 136
15. The berry farm 137
16. SONG community garden 137
17. 'Greening the Campus VII' Conference poster . 143
1CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
An increasing sense ofdissonance between our sense of our own values and
ethical standards and the behaviors that we are forced to adopt through
participation in consumer culture leads to the drive to find new ways of relating
to the world around us. The rise of a movement that is concerned with the social
and ecological consequences of the industriallcapitalist system reflects the
emergence ofnew ways of thinking about the world and our place in it. The
ecovillage movement represents the most radical expression of this movement
towards reworking the self-world relationship. This is to be achieved through the
creation ofan alternative space in which the prescriptions and proscriptions of
the dominant culture are excluded in favor ofvalues that represent what has been
termed a "new environmental paradigm. /I An emphasis on supporting sustainable
practices such as organic agriculture, bioregional initiatives, recycling, and the
practice of voluntary simplicity, flies in the face of the consumptive and
globalizing force represented by the dominant social mode (Kirby 2004).
This research involves a case study of EcoVillage at Ithaca (also known simply as
EcoVillage), an ecovillage using the cohousing model. Broadly, ecovillages are
deliberately-created communities whose members strive to live in a socially and
environmentally sustainable manner, to practice voluntary simplicity, and to cultivate
meaning, life satisfaction, and fulfillment (Bonnette 2004; Kirby 2004; Svensson in
Jackson and Svensson 2002). The goal of Ecovillage at Ithaca, as understood by
residents, is to create a model of sustainable living that is appealing to mainstream
America, while at the same time reducing the ecological footprint of inhabitants and
increasing meaningful relationships within the community. Kirby (2004), in "Domestic
Protest: The Ecovillage Movement as a Space of Resistance," identifies the ecovillage as
2an everyday space that represents an alternative to consumer society, using "the spatial
arrangements of its built form" to promote connections among residents and their
environment. In this document, I will explore the degree to which EcoVillage can be
understood as a space of resistance and EcoVillage residents can be understood as
activists.
Resistance to the ills of consumer culture, including the negative personal, social,
economic and environmental impacts of material consumption, can take many forms.
Harvey (1989) and Sharp, Routledge, Philo, and Patterson (2000) hold that the
dominating power of the capitalist political economic system has not only infused the
American built environment, but also continues to play out across space and in places.
Confronting either the built environment or capitalism necessitates confronting the other
(Harvey 1989). As a result, according to Cresswell (2004), Harvey (1989), Pickerill and
Chatterton (2006), and Pile and Keith (1997), place, and the creation of new places, can
be an important tool used by those resisting the ills of consumer culture.
In this document, I will begin with an introduction to the relationship between
capitalism and the built environment, and the various personal, economic, and
environmental impacts of material consumption as structured by capitalism. The work of
Marx and Engles (1848 & 1844), Gunder Frank, Heilbronner (1988), O'Connor (1998),
Sawyer (1988), and Shannon (1996) will be instrumental in illustrating some of the
economic impacts of material consumption. I will draw from the work of Goss (2004),
3Billig (1999), Etzioni (1999), Stearns (2001), and Kassel' and collaborative authors
(Arndt et. al. 2004a; Brown and Kassel' 2005; Kassel' 2002; Kassel' and Ryan 1993, 1996;
Kassel' et. al. 2004; Sheldon and Kassel' 2001) to illustrate the negative social, cultural,
and personal impacts of material consumption as structured by capitalism. Using the
work of Foucault (1978, 1984); Harvey (1996, 2000); Cresswell (2000, 2004); Pile and
Keith (1997); Sharp, Routledge, Philo, and Patterson (2000); and Pickerill and Chatterton
(2006), I will then investigate the following theories: power and resistance, 'geographies
of resistance' (which include many spaces of resistance), and 'autonomous geographies'
(which are concerned specifically with the everyday spaces of resistance in the lives of
activists). I will draw from the works of these and other authors throughout this document
and these ideas will be synthesized in the concluding chapter.
Following a description of my qualitative methods research of EcoVillage at
Ithaca, I will conclude with an investigation of the thoughts of EcoVillage residents
regarding the role of both individuals and the EcoVillage itself in contesting consumer
culture and modeling an alternative. I will argue that although the individual residents do
not necessarily consider themselves activists, EcoVillage itself is an activist space and
can be considered a space of resistance to consumer society. This is important because it
demonstrates that EcoVillage at Ithaca is not simply a comfortable lifestyle choice for
residents, but has transformative impacts beyond the EcoVillage itself.
4Ecovillages
Ecovillages are one type of intentional community. Kozeny (2005a) articulates
that intentional communities are created based on a dream of a better life, a life that
incorporates something that is apparently missing in mainstream culture. Meltzer (2005)
provides examples of many types of intentional communities, such as Kibbutzim,
religious/spiritual and egalitarian communities, American communes, student co-ops,
cohousing, and ecovillages. Specifically, as mentioned above, ecovillages are
deliberately-created communities whose members strive to live in a socially and
environmentally sustainable manner, to practice voluntary simplicity] , and to cultivate
meaning, life satisfaction, and fulfillment (Kirby 2004). Most simply, an ecovillage can
be defined as a...
.. .human-scale full-featured settlement in which human activities are harmlessly
integrated into the natural world in a way that is supportive of healthy human
development and can be successfully continued into the indefinite future (Gilman
1991).
There are 375 ecovillages in the world and 85 in the United States (Global Ecovillage
Network 2007). By and large, ecovillages in the United States are a distinctly white,
middle-class endeavor (Kirby 2004). Ecovillages aspire to perhaps an unattainable ideal.
However, they have been identified by Kirby (2004), Pickerill and Chatterton (2006), and
1 Voluntary simplicity, one component of ecovillage living, has three components: (I) the rejection of
consumerism, (2) the cultivation of spirituality, and (3) the ability to freely choose this lifestyle. A person
does not have to live in an ecovillage to practice voluntary simplicity. You will notice the similarities
between the definition of voluntary simplicity and that of the ecovillage.
5other academics as an everyday space that represents alternative to consumer society.
According to Bonnette (2004), they are touted as strong models of activism.
EcoVillage at Ithaca
In July of 2007, I traveled to EcoVillage at Ithaca, located on the West Hill of
Ithaca, New York, to conduct qualitative research. EcoVillage's mission statement reads:
The ultimate goal of EcoVillage at Ithaca is nothing less than to redesign the
human habitat. We are creating a model community of some five hundred
residents that will exemplify sustainable systems of living - systems that are not
only practical in themselves, but replicable by others. The completed project will
demonstrate the feasibility of a design that meets basic human needs such as
shelter, food production, energy, social interaction, work and recreation while
preserving natural ecosystems (EcoVillage at Ithaca Mission Statement 1994).
As stated above, the goal of EcoVillage, as understood by residents, is to create a model
of sustainable living that is appealing to mainstream America, while at the same time
reducing the ecological footprint of residents and increasing meaningful relationships
within the community.
In 1990, founders Joan Boaker and Liz Walker had vision for an ecovillage based
on McCamant and Durrett's (1988) book Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to
Housing Ourselves. Cohousing is a design style that is meant to facilitate community
interaction. McCamant and Durrett (1994:17), who are credited with bringing the idea of
cohousing to the United States, hold that "based on democratic principles, cohousing
developments espouse no ideology other than the desire for a more practical and social
home environment." Typically, there are several common characteristics shared by
6cohousing communities, including resident participation in planning and design process;
a design that encourages interaction among residents, including shared pathways with no
cars allowed inside neighborhoods; common facilities, including a common house with a
kitchen for common meals; self-governance, usually consensus decision-making; and
small houses. These characteristics are believed by cohousing proponents to have many
benefits, including the opportunity for greater access to resources and services as a result
of the combination of various community members' interests and skills; less pressure on
individuals and families, less monetary expenditure, less need for transportation, and
smaller ecological footprints; and child-friendly environments resulting from their
pedestrian-friendly nature and their community support networks. Boaker and Walker
were inspired by these characteristics and supposed benefits. Eventually EcoVillage did
use the cohousing model to design and build their two existing neighborhoods.
In 1991 Boaker and Walker held an envisioning retreat and in 1992 they gained
nonprofit status, purchased 176 acres in Ithaca, New York, and began the planning of the
First Neighborhood Group (FROG). FROG, which includes 15 duplexes, was constructed
between 1995 and 1997. The residents were intimately involved in the collective design
process. During this time the Second Neighborhood Group (SONG) was in the planning
stages. SONG, which also includes 15 duplexes, was constructed between 2000 and
2003. In this neighborhood, the residents each designed their own custom home and some
participated in building their homes, as well. Currently, EcoVillage is planning its Third
Neighborhood Group (TREE).
7EcoVillage currently has 60 homes housing approximately 170 people. Fifty-five
acres are held in a conservation easement by the Finger Lakes Land Trust, including the
privately-owned organic community supported agriculture (CSA) Westhaven Farm.
There is also a privately-owned CSA you-pick berry farm. Each neighborhood has its
own common facilities, including a common house for shared meals, community gardens,
shared laundry facilities, and playgrounds. EcoVillage has common facilities shared by
all residents, including the infrastructure (roads, water and sewage pipes, and electricity
delivery), a pond (used for fire suppression and recreation), a sauna, and treed land used
for hiking and cross country skiing. The neighborhoods and the village use consensus
decision-making and voluntary work teams, but the nonprofit uses a typical board of
directors voting strategy. All the homes incorporate various green building, renewable
energy, and energy efficiency technologies, such as passive solar construction,
photovoltaics, solar hot water, rainwater capture, the use of regional and/or recycled
materials, strawbale construction, super-insulation, and shared boilers.
Research Questions and Answers
In this case study of EcoVillage at Ithaca, I will explore the following research
questions:
1. To what degree is EcoVillage at Ithaca a space of resistance to the ills of
capitalism and consumer culture?
82. To what degree do the residents of EcoVillage at Ithaca interpret their choice to
live there as an activist act of resistance?
3. How are these different scales of resistance, at the EcoVillage and resident level,
related?
These questions are important because they help illuminate whether EcoVillage at Ithaca
is simply a comfortable lifestyle choice for residents, or has transformative impacts
beyond the EcoVillage itself.
I will argue that EcoVillage has emergent properties that result from a
combination of resident participation in community building and maintenance, the use of
an architectural style that facilitates community interaction (cohousing), the reduction in
the ecological footprints of individual residents as a result of resource sharing, and the
scaling-up of local action that results from EcoVillage's educational mission to model
sustainable culture to mainstream Americans. As a result of these emergent properties,
EcoVillage (the place itself) is the unit of resistance to capitalism and the ills of
consumer culture, rather than the individual residents. The inhabitants, although
themselves not actively resisting, are along for the ride.
I came to this conclusion for several reasons. A person's decision to move to
EcoVillage is not, in itself, a single, defined, political act of resistance against capitalism,
consumer culture, or their ills. People moving to EcoVillage are, for the most part,
seeking fulfillment (i.e. a greater sense of community, reduced alienation, addressing
9personal and family needs), as opposed to addressing these larger structures, processes,
and dynamics. However, these two things are not contradictory. It is, in fact, how
resistance happens. People seek an alternative to the status quo and create a space of
resistance incidentally, often a involving their everyday activities. The creation of a space
of resistance does not have to be an articulated manifesto. And so, the choice to live at
EcoVillage results in resistance.
Again, these questions are important because they help to illuminate that
EcoVillage at Ithaca is not simply a comfortable lifestyle choice for residents, but has
transformative impacts beyond the EcoVillage itself. There are numerous impacts of
material consumption as structured by capitalism, including economic, environmental,
social, cultural, and personal. If ecovillages are going to help lead the cessation of these
impacts, both the residents of the world's ecovillages and those emulating these models
must understand the ways in which their individual lifestyle choices can be harnessed to
facilitate sweeping social change. Because of its educational outreach, EcoVillage has the
potential to have a broad impact in this regard.
Capitalism and Consumerism
My research is under-girded by the understanding that patterns of material
consumption in the United States, and other industrialized nations, are structured by
capitalism, the dominant political and economic system. These consumption patterns
have associated economic, environmental, social, cultural, and personal impacts across
10
the globe. The economic impacts of material consumption include the concentration of
wealth and dominating power in the hands of the world's upper echelon, and an
increasing wealth gap between the world's rich and poor. This inequitable distribution of
wealth and power occurs not only within countries, but between them as well
(Heilbronner 1988; O'Connor 1998; Sawyer 1988; Shannon 1996). The environmental
impacts of material consumption include global climate change, deforestation, natural
resource depletion, air and water pollution, biodiversity loss, and the list goes on.
The social, cultural, and personal impacts of the capitalist political economy
include (but are not limited to) impacts on consumers, such as commodity fetishism,
alienation, and materialism. Commodity fetishism describes the process by which
consumers dismiss the impacts of their consumption choices on those people who
actually produce the products, as well as impacts on the environment. Some now argue
that commodity fetishism fosters the derivation of consumers' senses of personal identity
through consumption (Goss 2004). Under late capitalism, some argue that alienation and
commodity fetishism are reciprocally reproduced. No longer the owners of the means of
production, people are no longer defined by what they 'do'. Rather, they are increasingly
defined by what they consume. This increases the strength of the link between personal
identity and consumed commodities (Billig 1999).
The idea that through material consumption, people search for fulfillment,
meaning, happiness and identity is not new (Billig 1999; Steams 2001). However, there is
11
a growing body of literature describing the ways in which consumers' ability to derive
satisfaction from consumption actually decreases with each incremental increase in
consumption, excluding the poor (Etzioni 1999; Myers 2004; Steams 2001). Tim Kasser
and collaborative authors are the most prolific social psychologists studying this
relationship between materialism and well-being. These authors describe the negative
personal, psychological, and environmental impacts of materialism, understood as being
oriented towards external goals, including the pursuit of money, fame, image, power,
possessions, status, popularity, and attractiveness (Kasser 2002; Kasser and Ryan 1993,
1996; Kasser et. al. 2004; Sheldon and Kasser 2001). These authors debunk a
fundamental assumption of the'American Dream' with the understanding that striving
for external goals does not deliver happiness (Kasser and Ryan 1993, 1996; Kasser 2002;
Kasser et. al. 2004). These strivings instead diminish well-being, damage interpersonal
relationships, reduce quality of life, and promote the overconsumption of resources,
among other things (Kasser and Ryan 1996; Kasser and Sheldon 2000; Kasser 2002;
Kasser et. al. 2004). Conversely, a focus on intrinsic values promotes greater personal,
social, and ecological well-being (Arndt et. al. 2004a, Brown and Kasser 2005; Kasser
2002; Kasser et. al. 2004; Sheldon and Kasser 2001).
Resistance
Because there are so many negative consequences of the way we organize
ourselves socially under the current capitalist, political, economic system, there have
been (and continue to be) myriad attempts at multiple scales to resist it and to find
12
alternatives. Cresswell (2000) argues that resistance is the use of power to change one's
life circumstances. According to Sharp et al. (2000), because power and resistance both
take place across space and in places, these entanglements of power and resistance are
spatial, and indeed, geographical. Geographers and others have been attentive to the ways
in which resistance plays out through space and in place.
In Geographies ofResistance, Pile and Keith (1997) examine the ways in which
the reorganization of material space can be understood as resistance. They are concerned
particularly with the ways in which those resisting forms of domination can exercise
power through the reorganization of material space. Examples such as communes and
religious enclaves demonstrate this use of a particular place as a form of resistance
against the ills of capitalism (Cresswell 2004).
Insights
With this understanding of the impacts of material consumption as structured by
capitalism, as well as theoretical attempts to explain resistance to these impacts, I will
now briefly outline some of the results and conclusions of my case study. Though only a
preliminary summary of the document that follows, this overview demonstrates that the
creation of a space of resistance does not have to be an articulated manifesto. The choice
of individual residents to move to EcoVillage is an act of resistance, even if residents are
not politically active or completely committed to EcoVillage's mission.
13
Residents understood EcoVillage at Ithaca to be an educational model for
mainstream America, demonstrating an alternative to consumer culture. Residents may
have more sustainable lifestyles as a result of living at EcoVillage, but are nonetheless
required to maintain a mainstream existence with mainstream employment. In general,
residents felt that although they may not be politically active, they were making a
difference that has impacts beyond EcoVillage itself. It is this impact beyond the lives of
the individual residents that I argue allows EcoVillage to be understood as a space of
resistance to the ills of consumer culture rather than simply a comfortable lifestyle choice
for residents. Through its educational mission, and accompanying outreach, EcoVillage
at Ithaca is having an impact beyond the lives of the individual residents, however
limited. Therefore, it can be considered an effective space of resistance.
This means that EcoVillage, as a space of resistance, has transformative impacts
beyond the EcoVillage itself to the broader structures, processes, and dynamics that are
dictating social, economic, and environmental life in the United States and other
industrialized nations. Granted, this impact may be limited to certain audiences.
However, by understanding the ways in which spaces of resistance can scale-up their
impact, ecovillage residents and would-be ecovillagers can more effectively harness their
individual lifestyle choices to support and encourage widespread social change.
EcoVillage at Ithaca provides one solution to the ills of capitalism and consumer culture.
14
CHAPTER II
LINKING CAPITALISM, CONSUMERISM, WELL-BEING,
AND VOLUNTARY SIMPLICITY
My goods, in order to be mine and to be enjoyed as such, must be separatedfrom
the bodies which have created them. I must not imagine those strange hands
which once touched my precious possessions, including those which now lie next
to my skin. My sense ofpossession would be diminished - as well as my good
consuming self-ifI took seriously those dark, busy fingers, working in conditions
far removed from the life-world ofmy playful self. These anonymous fingers, no
matter how many more hours they labour, will never be able to touch in a gesture
ofownership a coat, car or table like mine. They will never have a se(f like mine...
My memory can include the production ofmy self through my consumption; I can
tell stories ofhow I acquired the means to be my present self. But, I have little or
nothing to say about the production ofmy jealously owned commodities. I will not
even inquire what continents have contributed to these goods or what languages
were spoken by those who laboured to bring me my pleasures... All thoughts like
these are to be pushed from the happy consciousness (Billig 1999:319 - 320).
Patterns of material consumption in the United States, and other industrialized
nations, are structured by capitalism, the dominant political and economic system. These
consumption patterns have associated economic, environmental, social, cultural, and
personal impacts across the globe. Capitalism as a global system results not only in
environmental degradation, increased inequality, increased poverty, increasingly
concentrated and differentially applied power, but also social, cultural, and personal costs
(Heilbronner 1988; O'Connor 1998; Sawyer 1988; Shannon 1996).
15
These social, cultural, and personal costs include impacts on consumers, such as
commodity fetishism, alienation, and materialism. I use these terms to describe the ways
in which through the devaluation people and the increased valuation of things found
under capitalism, people dismiss the impacts of the consumption choices they make in
search of personal identity and fulfillment (Goss 2004). However, there is a growing
body of literature describing the ways in which consumers' ability to derive satisfaction
from consumption actually decreases with each incremental increase in consumption
(Etzioni 1999; Myers 2004; Steams 2001).
Understanding the impacts of material consumption will help to illuminate some
of the possible factors motivating people to create alternatives to consumer capitalism. In
this chapter, I will draw from neo-Marxist theories to briefly outline some of the
economic, environmental, social, cultural, and personal impacts of material consumption.
I will then briefly discuss one response to the impacts of this material consumption:
voluntary simplicity.
Economic Impacts
The economic impacts of material consumption result from the capitalist global
political economy. These impacts include the concentration of wealth and power in the
hands of the world's upper echelon, an increasing wealth gap between the world's rich
and poor, increasing inequality, and increased poverty. This inequitable distribution of
wealth and power occurs not only within countries, but between them as well, as
16
described by Dependency Theorists and World System Theorists. Theories of monopoly
capitalism explain the role of Multinational Corporations (MNCs) in this concentration of
power and wealth. In addition, theories of uneven and combined development expand this
conception of siphoning wealth and power to explain how capitalism as a global
economic system results not only increasingly inequitable distribution of resources, but
also in environmental, social, and cultural degradation (Heilbronner 1988; O'Connor
1998; Sawyer 1988; Shannon 1996).
The Development of Underdevelopment
In the chapter "Capitalism as Regime" of his book Behind the Veil of Economics:
Essays in the Worldly Philosophy, Robert L. Heilbroner (1988) assesses the accumulation
of wealth that occurs in a capitalist system. The purpose of this wealth is unique in
history: exchange, represented by commodities. He argues that because some people
(Marx's 'labor') do not have access to private property (Marx's 'means of production'),
they must access that owned by others (Marx's 'bourgeoisies') in order to earn a living.
The owners of private property will profit from this exchange (Marx's 'surplus'), and
profit necessarily depends on this imbalance in economic standing (Heilbroner 1988;
Marx and Engles 1848 & 1844). Heilbroner (1988:40) argues that "what is of the essence
under capitalism is that gains from whatever origin normally accrue to the owners of
capital, not to workers, managers, or government officials." 'Capitalism as a regime' is
apparent in this concentration of profit within an upper echelon. As a result, there is an
17
increase in inequality, and a widening gap between the rich and the poor within the
capitalist society.
Heilbroner (1988) argues that capitalism generates pressures on 'internal' and
'external' factors. 'Internal factors,' altered by the mandate to seek profit and accumulate
wealth, include increases in competition and commodification. 'External factors' can be
categorized as macroeconomic, as the commodification mentioned above expands
beyond the capitalist society itself, and brings profit-seeking with it. Internationally, this
results in "strength at the Center [a.k.a. core] to which surplus is siphoned, and weakness
in the Periphery from which it is extracted", which is termed the "development of
underdevelopment" (Heilbroner 1988:55). This siphoning results in an increase in
inequality, and a widening gap between the rich and the poor, both 'outside' and within
the global political economy that is ever transitioning towards capitalism, absorbing those
'outside.' This review helps to illuminate the poverty and inequality that results from the
expansion of capitalism.
Dependency Theory and World Systems Theory
World Systems Theory (WST), as described by Thomas R. Shannon (1996) in An
Introduction to World Systems Perspective, draws from the ideas of Marx, Weber, and
Dependency Theorists in responding to modernization and structural-functionalism, the
driving theories behind global capitalist expansion. WST draws significantly from
Dependency Theory, as defined by Andre Gunder Frank and Amin (Shannon 1996).
18
Dependency Theorists seek to explain" ... the limited progress peripheral countries have
. made in achieving economic development and general modernization" (Shannon
1996: 15). Not only is the imperialistic relationship between the core and periphery
exploitative, it is contrived, manipulated, and reinforced to maintain the quality of that
relationship. Profits flow from the periphery to core corporations and "the outcome of
this pattern of trade is that peripheral countries can never earn enough from their exports
to cover the costs of their imports and then to invest in a broad-based program of
industrialization" (Shannon 1996: 16). Peripheral povelty and dependence on the core is
perpetuated through export of raw materials and agricultural products, the appropriation
of cheap labor, and the strategic provision of aid and loans. This process, the
"development of underdevelopment," was also described by Heilbroner (1988), as
discussed above (Shannon 1996). WST theorists hold that" ... the economic organization
of the world-system consists of a single, worldwide division of labor that unifies the
multiple cultural systems of the world's people into a single, integrated economic
system" (Shannon 1996:24). The role of the state, then, is to maintain the social class
stratification within these systems, which in tum maintains an environment conducive to
the productive activities of capitalists. This analysis illustrates not only the poverty and
inequality resulting from capitalism, but also the concentration of power in the hands of
certain players.
19
Combined and Uneven Development
'Combined development' describes the process in which the choice of geographic
location for MNCs is based on the location of the most profitable combination of political
and governmental climate, labor surplus, labor and environmental regulations, and other
resources. The most profitable location is one that welcomes an influx of capital via
relaxed labor and environmental protections, among other things (O'Connor 1998). In
"Theories of Monopoly Capitalism," Malcolm C. Sawyer (1988) argues that MNCs that
own and manage enterprises in multiple countries" ...weaken the power of workers and
thereby lower wages and/or raise the intensity oflabour" (Sawyer 1988:67). Because of
the reduction in competition between domestic and foreign corporations, monopolies
increase. Sawyer (1988) explains that 'monopoly capitalism' theorists (who attempt to
understand the oligopolistic behavior of corporations within the capitalist system, the
development and progression of that behavior, and its micro- and macro-economic
implications) reject the idea that MNCs increase competition, welfare, or economic
efficiency. Rather, MNCs extend their own power, while reducing that of workers and
national governments. Thus, power is increasingly concentrated in the hands of fewer and
fewer MNCs and this power is exercised differentially across the globe.
In the chapter "Uneven and Combined Development and Ecological Crisis," of
his book Natural Causes, James O'Connor (1998) stresses the impacts of combined
development on resource extraction and pollution. As workers are pulled to industrial
regions, environmental, labor, health and safety regulations diminish, while exploitation
20
increases. This reduction of regulations directly impacts people and the environment.
O'Connor (1998:197) believes that "what is transferred from the North [a.k.a. core] to the
South [a.k.a. periphery] is not just capital and technology but also a cluster of social and
environmental costs."
'Uneven development' is defined as the uneven distribution of structures of
economic, social, class-based, political, and governmental interactions across the globe.
This uneven development results from the uneven distribution of natural resources
combined with uneven distribution of power. This" ...means that industrial, finance, and
commercial capital have accumulated more rapidly, in larger blocks or agglomerations,
and with greater political power in some regions than others" (O'Connor 1998: 188).
O'Connor (1988) argues that this leads to the "development of underdevelopment,"
described by Marx, Heilbroner (1988), and World System Theorists (such as Shannon
1996), in which natural, surplus, and labor resources are funneled from the periphery to
the core.
Uneven development results in an uneven distribution of pollution. O'Connor
(1998: 191) states that: "the human victims of ecological degradation are typically the
rural poor. .. and the unemployed and underemployed in the cities, as well as the
oppressed minorities and poor in the North." O'Connor (1998) further explains that
Marx, in his description of uneven development, noted the resulting environmental
degradation. This pollution results from the uneven distribution of resource extraction
21
and depletion. O'Connor (1998) discusses agriculture, deforestation, and the exploitation
of fossil fuels, and their associated environmental insults; as well as the resulting poverty,
migration, health effects, un- and under-employment, among others. He argues: "all in
all, world capitalism, given uneven development, has been a disaster for hundreds of
millions of people" (O'Connor 1998:195).
O'Connor (1998: 198) holds that as a result of the drive for profit accumulation as
seen in capitalism:
Uneven development has resulted in the destruction of many natural resources,
combined development has added pollution, toxic waste problems, and so on.
When uneven and combined development of capital are themselves combined, it
would appear that superpollution in industrial zones may be explained by
superdestruction of land and resources in raw material zones, and vice versa.
Capitalism as a global economic system results not only in social and cultural problems,
human health issues, increased inequality, increased poverty, increasingly concentrated
and differentially applied power, but also environmental degradation,.
Environmental Impacts
The environmental impacts of material consumption include global climate
change, deforestation, natural resource depletion, air and water pollution, solid and toxic
waste, fisheries collapse, the hole in the ozone layer, species extinction, biodiversity loss,
acid rain, and the list goes on. In "Environmental Harm and the Political Economy of
Consumption," Rob White (2002) argues that an examination the environmental
degradation resulting from human behaviors must be nested in an examination of the
22
current political economy: capitalism. And, this examination must include the limitations
of current environmental regulations in addressing these harms (White 2002). Recent
scholarship in this area...
. . .has emphasized the dynamic links between the distribution of environmental
risk (particular!y as it affects poor and minority populations) and the claims of
nonhuman nature to ecological justice. Moreover, it has criticized the
inadequacies of environmental regulation in philosophical and practical terms
(White 2002:83).
White (2002) discusses the inadequacy of the field of criminology, as used in
environmental regulation, in responding to environmental harm resulting from activities
of capitalist enterprise. The fundamental oversight of environmental criminology and
regulation results from an inability to recognize" ... the interconnectedness of social and
environmental issues" (White 2002:84). This results in the elimination of criticism of
capitalist economic expansion despite the finite biosphere, and eliminates a larger
analysis of the social construction of nature. The above analysis promotes an
understanding of the ways in which capitalism, consumption, environmental degradation,
and personal, social, and cultural costs are intimately intertwined.
Personal, Social, and Cultural Impacts
Rob White (2002:98) explains that tackling capitalism as a social and cultural
structure must" .. .include consideration of neoliberalism as an ideology and practice." He
argues that the expansion of capitalism promotes the infiltration of material consumption
into all aspects of life, the creation of a deep desire to consume, and the substitution of
true freedom with only a freedom to choose between products. The substitution of
23
perceptions of desire with perceptions of need results in socially-constructed needs and
forwards this expansive capitalist transformation, resulting in a cycle of increased
consumensm.
White (2002:86) holds that "the nature of consumption under capitalism is
inseparable from the nature of production," meaning that the: who, what, where, when,
why, and how of consumption are all the direct result of decisions made by producers.
These choices are driven by capitalist interests rather than the interests of people or
governments. In conceptualizing consumption, " ... the symbolic place of consumerist
ideology as part of the capitalist realization of surplus value (i.e., the production of
meaning)" and" ... consumerism, as a materially 'lived' ideology... " must be evaluated
(White 2002:86). Others argue that late capitalism " .. .is defined by relations of
consumption rather than production" (Billig 1999:316).
Commodity Fetishism and Alienation
In Marx's analysis of capitalism, he identified the concepts of 'alienation' and
'commodity fetishism'. Alienation was originally understood as the estrangement
workers experienced as a result of being torn from ownership of the means of production,
as they transitioned to work in factories where the means of production were owned by
others. People who had an emotive cOlmection to, and control over, the product of their
labors, were unalienated. As people were no longer able to sell the product of their labor,
but only their labor itself, a cultural and religious societal transformation occurred,
24
resulting in alienated labor (Marx and Engles 1848 & 1844). Alienated workers were
only valued in terms of the relationship of their labor (a commodity) to other
commodities. This can be understood as the prioritization of the exchange value of labor
over its use value. White (2002: 89) draws from Marx's ideas when stating that: " ... the
alienation of workers from the production process and from the products of their labor is
associated with general devaluation of the human world in favor of the world of things."
A related concept is that of commodity fetishism, which describes the process by
which consumers dismiss the impacts of their choices on those people who actually
produce the products, as well as impacts on the environment. Again the concepts of use
and exchange value are important: commodity fetishism results from the primary value of
commodities resting in exchange value rather than use value. Michael Billig (1999: 315)
in "Commodity Fetishism and Repression" clarifies: "instead of understanding the value
of the commodity in terms of the social relations which have produced it, the
commodity's value is understood in relation to other commodities." Further, Billig
(1999:313) argues that within in the habits of consumerism, lie" ... a collective
forgetfulness, which can be understood psychologically as a form of social repression...
constituted in dialogue and, as such, tied to the routines of everyday life."
Commodity fetishism, some argue, results in the derivation of consumers' senses
of personal identity through consumption. Goss (2004:373) argues that under consumer
capitalism, " ... commodities are possessed of a 'mystical character', which is the
--- ---------------------
25
objectifying effect of the system of exchange, and that under capitalism individual and
social identity is fashioned through consumption." Commodity fetishism results in the
incorporation of all aspects of life into patterns of material consumption, the creation of a
deep desire to consume, the substitution of perceptions of desire with perceptions of
need, and creates socially-constructed needs.
Under late capitalism, alienation and commodity fetishism are reciprocally
reproduced. No longer the owners of the means of production, people are no longer
defined by what they 'do'. Rather, they are increasingly defined by what they consume.
This increases the strength of the link between personal identity and consumed
commodities. Billig (1999:318) writes of this reciprocal reproduction:
.. .if the commodities are to be consumed as items of pleasure and as confirmations
of the identity of the consumer, then the consumers must routinely not think about
the labour relations involved in the production of what they are consuming. This
means forgetting about the social relations which lie behind the commodities.
Alienation (resulting from the objectification of labor as a commodity) facilitates
commodity fetishism (the dismissal of the impacts of consumption choices) and
facilitates the search for personal identity and fulfillment through material consumption.
Materialism and the Searchfor Well-Being
Peter N. Steams (2001), in Consumerism in World History: the Global
Transformation of Desire, agrees that through material consumption, people search for
fulfillment, meaning, happiness and identity. This is not a new phenomenon, but rather it
26
has accompanied consumerism through its proliferation. As consumerism propagated,
increases in material standards of Iiving resulted in the creation of " ... a set of new
problems with other goals in life, associated both with work and with homemaking,
which pushed consumerism as a surrogate compensation" (Steams 2001 :57). In addition
to meeting basic needs through material consumption, people created new desires which
they believed could also be met through consumption. According to Steams (2001: 138,
emphasis added), consumerism" ... compensates for change, and also provides further
change in the interests of apparent personal fulfillment and new forms of identity."
If consumption, as structured by capitalism, represents affluent consumers' search
for fulfillment, meaning, happiness, and identity, then this leads to the following
question: Is satisfaction gained or happiness found through consumption? According to a
growing body of literature, consumers' ability to gain satisfaction from consumption
actually decreases with each incremental increase in consumption. Eventually, a point is
reached in which each additional unit of consumption actually decreases satisfaction or
happiness, resulting in what I term the 'law of diminishing marginal happiness' (Etzioni
1999; Myers 2004, Steams 2001).
In "Voluntary Simplicity: A New Social Movement?" sociologist Amitai Etzioni
(1999: 114) argues that "social science findings ...in toto seem to support the notion that
income does not significantly affect contentment, with the important exception of the
poor." The author explains that for the affluent, the relationship between income and
27
happiness is inverse. In fact, "recent psychological studies have made even stronger
claims: that the more concerned people are with their financial well-being, the less likely
they are to be happy" (Etzioni 1999:115). In "Consumerism in World History", historian
Peter N. Stearns (2001:142, emphasis added) also investigates this relationship, and refers
to recent social science findings that:
...major consumer gains in a society - a real move upward in material standards -
initially cause a definitive jump in measurable happiness. But after that and in
more established consumer settings, consumerism is irrelevant to claimed
satisfaction, and people enmeshed in milder forms of consumerism may be
happier than consumerist zealots.
Psychologist David Myers (2004), in "What is the Good Life?" explains that there is only
a feeble link between wealth and well-being. He describes the 'law of diminishing
marginal happiness':
Our becoming better off materially [in the US] has not made us better off
psychologically ...The conclusion startles because it challenges modern
materialism: Economic growth in affluent countries has provided no apparent
boost to human morale .. .It is further striking that those who strive most for wealth
tend to live with lower well-being (Myers 2004: 15, emphasis added).
Finally, he explains" ... that those who instead strive for intimacy, personal growth, and
contribution to the community enjoy a higher quality of life" (Myers 2004: 15).
Tim Kasser and collaborative authors are the most prolific social psychologists
studying this relationship between materialism and well-being. These authors describe
the negative personal, psychological, and environmental impacts of externally motivated
goals, such as the pursuit of money (Kasser 2002; Kasser and Ryan 1993, 1996; Kasser
et. a1.2004; Sheldon and Kasser 2001), fame and image (Kasser 2002; Kasser and Ryan
28
1996; Kasser et. al. 2004; Sheldon and Kasser 2001), and power, possessions, status,
popularity, and attractiveness (Kasser 2002; Sheldon and Kasser 2001), all of which can
be understood as components of materialism. Finally, these authors explore the
possibility of the concurrent satisfaction of personal and environmental well-being
(Brown and Kasser 2005; Kasser 2002).
These authors debunk a fundamental assumption of the'American Dream' with
the understanding that striving for money, fame, and image does not deliver happiness
(Kasser and Ryan 1993, 1996; Kasser 2002; Kasser et. al. 2004). These strivings instead
diminish well-being, promote distress, damage interpersonal relationships, reduce quality
of life, increase antisocial behavior, promote greed, and promote the overconsumption of
resources (Kasser and Ryan 1996; Kasser and Sheldon 2000; Kasser 2002; Kasser et. al.
2004). Conversely, a focus on intrinsic values promotes greater personal, social, and
ecological well-being (Arndt et. al. 2004a, Brown and Kasser 2005; Kasser 2002; Kasser
et. al. 2004; Sheldon and Kasser 2001).
The work of Kasser et al. suggests that it is not the existence of externally
oriented goals per se that has such a detrimental effect, but the extreme prioritization of
these goals, as seen in the materialistic consumer culture of the United States. This
prioritization of materialism and consumerism negatively affects not only peoples' well-
being, but also adversely affects the well-being of social interactions, the community, and
the environment (Arndt et. al. 2004a; Kasser 2002; Kasser et. al. 2004). On the other
29
hand, the substitution of intrinsic goals for extrinsic ones can have positive ramifications
extending beyond the individual, to the culture, other cultures, and the environment
(Arndt et. al. 2004a; Kasser 2002). Rather than attaining happiness via the extrinsic goals
promoted by the capitalist 'American Dream,' this research shows that attaining
happiness is more likely to be found through pursuits that do not require consumption or
environmental degradation (Kasser 2002; Brown and Kasser 2005).
Voluntary Simplicity
One response to the inadequacy of consumerism in offering consumers fulfillment
and happiness is voluntary simplicity (VS). This lifestyle demonstrates the correlation
between intrinsic orientation, well-being, and ecological sustainability. Studies of
voluntary simplicity have demonstrated that people who have prioritized intrinsic goals
and values are happier and live in less environmentally damaging ways (Kasser 2002;
Brown and Kasser 2005).
Duane Elgin (1993:25), credited with fathering voluntary simplicity and bringing
it into the common vocabulary, tells us in Voluntary Simplicity: Toward a Way ofLife
that is Outwardly Simple, Inwardly Rich that:
...we can describe voluntary simplicity as a manner of living that is outwardly
more simple and inwardly more rich, a way of being in which our most authentic
and alive self is brought into direct and conscious contact with living...The
objective is not dogmatically to live with less, but is a more demanding intention
of living with balance in order to find a life of greater purpose, fulfillment, and
satisfaction.
30
Sociologist Amitai Etzioni (1999: 109) describes voluntary simplicity as "... the decision to
limit expenditures on consumer goods and services and to cultivate nonmaterialistic
sources of satisfaction and meaning, out of free will rather than out of coercion by
poverty, government austerity programs, or imprisonment." Further, Etzioni (1999: 113,
emphasis added) tells us that" ...the simplicity-oriented philosophies are explicitly
anticonsumerist." Kasser (2002:99) categories voluntary simplicity as a social movement
" ... to abandon the high-paying, high-stress lifestyle necessary to support high levels of
consumption, and focus instead on personal growth, nurturing relationships, and helping
others."
One component of VS, the rejection of consumerism, involves not only an attempt
to alleviate many of the negative social, cultural, political, and environmental impacts of
consumerism, but also an attempt to alleviate its personal psychological impacts. In his
chapter, "In Search of Consumptive Resistance: The Voluntary Simplicity Movement,"
Michael Maniates (2002) tells us that the multiplicity of factors that draw people to
voluntary simplicity include predominately "job stress," (p.212), and the "... ways that
ordinary people caught in the midst of it all might reasonably react to preserve their
sanity, their families, and their sense of self-esteem" (p.216). Etzioni (1999:109) echoes
these sentiments, explaining that the rejection of consumerism derives from the
"...environmental, psychological, and other issues raised by consumerism... " and the fact
that" ...capitalism does not address spiritual concerns."
31
Conclusion
The preceding discussion of the economic, environmental, social, cultural, and
personal impacts of the consumerism and material consumption illustrates the importance
of creating alternative to the current consumer capitalist system. In the next chapter, I
turn to a discussion of the creation of alternatives to this system, and particularly the
spatial components of those alternatives.
32
CHAPTER III
SPACE, PLACE, AND REISTANCE
Yet a global strategy of resistance and transformation has to begin with the
realities ofplace and community (Harvey 1989:276).
There is a relationship between the built environment and the functions of
capitalism. In The Urban Experience, David Harvey (1989) discusses the reciprocal
relationship between the urban environment and the functions of capitalism. He argues
that capitalism could not have come to dominate without the infrastructure of "a built
environment potentially supportive of capitalist production, consumption, and
exchange... " (Harvey 1989:24). This built, urban environment allowed for the
concentration of labor and capital, which Harvey argues was necessary for the advance of
capitalism. The author conceives of urbanity as a 'product' of capitalist 'processes': the
forces and activities acting upon and within it. The key here is the idea that this landscape
".. .gives definite shape andform to a capitalist urbanization process . .. " (Harvey
1989:27, emphasis added). He believes that flows of capital are expressed on the
geographical landscape and that this capital flow required urbanization, in some form, to
proceed.
In addition playing a role in structuring the urban environment, capitalism also
played a role in structuring suburbia (a concept Robelt Bruegmann argues against in his
33
2005 book Sprawl: a Compact History). After World War II, the dominant form of
urbanization in the United States became suburbanization, which required ...
.. .the rising economic power of individuals to appropriate space for their own
exclusive purposes through debt-financed homeownership and debt-financed
access to transport services (auto purchases as well as highways) ... It meant the
mobilization of effective demand through total restructuring of space so as to
make the consumption of the products of the auto, oil, rubber, and construction
industries a necessity rather than a luxury. For nearly a generation after 1945,
suburbanization was part of a package of moves...to insulate capitalism against
the threat of cries of underconsumption... (Harvey 1989:39)
The housing industry began at this time to use the distinction between 'urban' and
'suburban' to sell its commodity. Harvey (1989:40) tells us that:
New kinds of communities could be constructed, packaged, and sold in a society
where who you were depended less and less on class position and more and more
on how you spent your money in the market. Living spaces were made to
represent status, position, and prestige.
As a result, material consumption, especially the consumption of housing and real estate,
was conflated with the creation of community and individual attempts to find fulfillment.
Dolores Hayden, in Building Suburbia (2003: 18) tells us that:
Excessive private consumption was not inevitable. It was the result of sustained
pressure from real estate interests and their allies in government to marginalize
the alternatives to unlimited private suburban growth. As the production of built
space came to dominate the economy, replacing the production of manufactured
goods, the pressures increased.
Harvey takes Hayden's argument a step further. He argues that suburbanization has been
actively created by capitalism" ...because it sustains an effective demand for products
and thereby facilitates the accumulation of capital" (Harvey 1989: 122). There are other
forces that are part of the political economy that actively create suburbanization, and so
34
"we can.. .interpret the preference for suburban living as a created myth, arising out of
possessive individualism, nurtured by the ad-mad and forced by the logic of capitalist
accumulation..." (Harvey 1989:122).
In The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs (1961) discusses and
critiques the goals, strategies, and physical manifestations of city planning and design as
currently implemented. She argues that the current forms of city planning and design
have been, and continue to be, manipulated to the benefit of some, and to the detriment of
many others. Harvey shares this belief that class relations, to a large extent, structure
housing, cities, and suburbs.
John R. Logan and Harvey L. Molotch (1987), in Urban Fortunes: the Political
Economy of Place, describe in greater detail this manipulation of city planning and design
and its uneven consequences. Logan and Molotch (1987) describe the city as a 'growth
machine': a group of structural speculators] colluding to change the conditions structuring
the market, in order" ... to change the relationships of a given place to other places ... "
(p.30) and ".. .intensify land use in an area" (p.32). 'Growth machines' compete with each
other for exchange value and to gain investors. Elites are able to mobilize resources to
forward their goals of increased growth, all the time under the guise of 'value-free
I Rather than only speculating and strategically purchasing places, structural speculators instead work to
"... alter the conditions that structure the market", and" ... to create differential rents by influencing the
larger arena of decision making that will determine local advantages." (Logan and Molotch 1987:30)
35
development'.2 Collusion among structural speculators results in the physical structuring
and re-structuring of cities and neighborhoods, and the determination of their growth
trajectories. The result is not only an inequitable distribution of use and exchange values
within a city, but also competition among cities to attract capital investment, which
further intensifies this inequity. The authors write that the development of suburbs is
structured by the same types of collusion among structural speculators that are found in
the city, and also results in inequality.
Harvey (1989:251-252) argues that: "the search for alternatives [to the capitalist
built environment] has to ... be prepared to transform, not only that vast constructed
second nature of a built environment shaped to accommodate capitalist modes and spatial
divisions of both production and consumption, but also an urbanized consciousness." The
urbanized consciousness is defined by "the mass merging of consumerist narcissism and
the desire for self-realization..." (Harvey 1898:254). Fmther, "the problem is to sever the
tight connection between self-realization and pure consumerism" (Harvey 1989:254).
In Studying Cultural Landscapes, Robertson and Richards (2003: 16) remind us
that:
It is ... important to realize that the [dominating] powerful cannot control
everything, and that landscape and identity formation are a dialogue constantly in
process. Contestation is as much a part of a dialogue as is agreement and will
therefore equally involve landscape.
2 'Value-free development' is the idea that land use is established by free markets alone. (Logan and
Molotch 1987:32)
36
Contestation has can have as grand an impact on landscape as the forces of domination.
lain S. Black (2003:19), in "(Re)reading Architectural Landscapes," explains that
" .. .landscapes can transform ideologies into a concrete, visible form," and that this can
be observed in architectural designs. Landscapes can embody many things: the political
economic system, its rejection, and often both. In City Trenches, Ira Katznelson
(1981: 193) writes that today, "... a remarkable consensus of activists is once again turning
to the place of residence rather than the place of work as the main locus of insurgent
activity ... " and "radical change." It is this notion of the place of residence as a site of
contestation that I will pursue throughout this work.
Resistance
Any discussion of contestation and resistance must include a discussion of power.
There are many ways contestation, resistance, domination, power, space, and place have
been described. In the following pages, I will outline several different understandings of
the relationships among them.
Jeremy W. Crampton and Stuart Elden (2007), in "Space Knowledge and Power:
Foucault and Geography", explain that although Michel Foucault's early work focused on
the dominant capabilities of power, his" ...middle to later work... emphasizes the
productive side of power". In The History ofSexuality: An Introduction, Foucault
(1978:95-96) argues that:
37
Where there is power, there is resistance, and yet, or rather consequently, this
resistance is never in a position of exteriority in relation to power. ... [There is a]
strictly relational character of power relationships. Their existence depends on a
multiplicity of points of resistance: these play the role of adversary, target,
support, or handle in power relations. These points of resistance are present
everywhere in the power network... [T]here is a plurality of resistances, each of
them a special case...
Further, he argues that resistances" ... too are distributed in irregular fashion: the points,
knots, or focuses of resistance are spread over time and space at varying densities ... "
(Foucault 1978:96). In "Space, Knowledge, and Power" Foucault (1984:245)
demonstrates that he does not see resistance to power as futile: " ... no matter how
terrifying a system may be, there always remain the possibilities of resistance,
disobedience, and oppositional groupings ..."
Tim Cresswell (2000:263), in "Falling Down: Resistance as diagnostic," extends
this idea in arguing that "what follows from a Foucauldian conception of power are new
ideas concerning resistance." Further:
Resistance, then, is not opposed to power but is a subset of it. Resistance becomes
the deployment of power with the motivation of alleviating or transforming the
conditions under which one lives. Resistance thus reconceptualised would not be
romanticised as an indicator of power's absence, but rather seen as evidence for
power's existence and an intervention that serves to delineate the mode of power
in question (Cresswell 2000:264).
Joanne P. Sharp, Paul Routledge, Chris Philo, and Ronan Paddison (2000), in
"Entanglements of Power: Geographies of domination/resistance," further this idea,
distinguishing between" ...dominating power... that power which attempts to control or
coerce others, impose upon others, or manipulate the consent of others" (p.2) and
38
" ... resisting power... that power which attempts to set up situations, groupings and
actions which resist the impositions of dominating power" (p.3).
Cresswell (2000:266) argues that "once we see resistance as a deployment and
diagnostic of power rather than the opposite, the spatiality of domination/resistance
becomes more entangled ... " This entanglement is a focus of inquiry and discussion for
Sharp et al. (2000:20):
...neither dominating power nor resisting power are total, but rather are both
fragmentary, uneven and inconsistent to varying degrees, and this realisation
prompts us to deploy the Foucauldian dyad of 'domination/resistance' ... Such a
formulation acknowledges that domination and resistance cannot exist
independently of each other, but neither can be reducible to one other. ..
Sharp et al. (2000) speak of "entanglements of power" (p.20) in which "resistance in one
place may therefore be complicit with domination in another, which begins to introduce
the entangled geographies ... " of power (p.24). Cresswell (2000:265) writes that:
" ... space constitutes the active medium within which power - both dominant and
resistant - happens." Sharp et al. (2000:24) take this further, arguing that" ... these
entanglements are thoroughly spatial and are indeed themselves inherently geographical."
The authors describe a cycle in which " ...relations of power are ... spun out across and
through the material spaces of the world" and these entanglements resulting from power's
impact on the material world in tum " ...make power happen... " (Sharp et al. 2000:24).
From this, they continue with a discussion of the power of resistance as exercised through
the reorganization of space.
39
Place and Resistance
David Harvey (1996:302), in Justice, Nature and the Geography ofD(fference,
argues that the ills of consumer culture ...
.. .will provoke resistances that increasingly focus on .alternative constructions of
place... The search for an authentic sense of community and of an authentic
relation to nature among many radical and ecological movements is the cutting
edge of exactly such a sensibility (Harvey 1996:302).
In Place: A Short Introduction, Tim Cresswell (2004:61) elaborates at length on this
concept:
This search for an authentic sense of place in the world is what Harvey (following
Raymond Williams) calls 'militant particularism'. This term indicates the political
use of the particularity of place as a form of resistance against the forces of global
capitalism. All over the world groups have been and are attempting to build their
own places and communities in order to live differently from the mass of people.
Communes, organic farms, traveler communities, urban neighborhood groups and
religious enclaves are all examples of this.
Akhil Gupta and James Ferguson (1997:6) in Culture, Power, Place: Explorations in
Critical Anthropology, agree, positing that " ... social and political processes of place
making, conceived less as a matter of 'ideas' than of embodied practices ... shape
identities and enable resistances."
Communities are an important component of resistance. Margo Adair and Sharon
Howell (1992:38), in "Women Weave Community" argue that social connections and...
.. .community bonds form the basis for support and resistance. Community is
essential for meaningful collective action.
Gupta and Ferguson (1997:6 emphasis added) hint at this when they write that " ... social
and political processes of place making ... enable resistances." The authors discuss place
40
making and resistance in relation to the creation of community. In the context of
ethnicity, they argue that within the concept of community rests a "tension" between
"essential group identity" and "the sovereign individual subject" (Gupta and Ferguson
1997:13). Community necessarily depends on the contrast between those who are similar
to each other within and those outside the community (i.e. different 'others' who are
excluded from the community). However, although there are similarities shared by those
within the community, there are differences among them as well. As Massey (1997,
excerpted in Cresswell 2004:68) argues:
...the instances of places housing single 'communities' in the sense of coherent
social groups are probably- and I would argue, have for long been - quite rare.
Moreover, even where they do exist this in no way implies a single sense of place.
For people occupy different places within any community.
These differences within community can include gender, race, sexual orientation, and
socioeconomic status, for instance.
Geographies ofResistance
In "Introduction: opposition, political identities and spaces of resistance" of the
book Geographies ofResistance (edited by Steve Pile and Michael Keith), Pile (1997)
argues that resistance is the opposition to power, which takes place through specific
geographies: the' geographies of resistance'. Gupta and Ferguson (1997: 18) agree:
"resistance can exist only in relation to a 'strategy of power,' and such strategies are
shifting, mobile, and multiple."
41
Geographers and others have been attentive to the ways in which resistance plays
out through space and in place:
Geographers have, for a long time, engaged in production of radical knowledge --
from Marxism, through feminism, to post-colonial and queer theory... They have
been attendant to the geographies of domination and exploitation and the
possibilities of political struggle... For geographers, political mobilisation is
commonly seen as embedded in either geographically circumscribed communities
(as in the politics if turf) or in spatialised communities (as in the geography of
class). Nevertheless, notions of community and their geographies cannot be
assumed, nor can their operativeness in resistance... (Pile 1997:4)
The work of Pile and Keith (1997) is one of the first attempts to codify an area of
geographic inquiry dedicated explicitly to resistance.
Domination versus Resistance
The understanding of power forwarded by Pile and Keith (1997) is one of an
'uncoupled' relationship between resistance and domination:
While there are different forms of control that work through distinct geographies,
geographies of resistance do not necessarily (or even ever) mirror geographies of
domination, as an upside-down or back-to-front or face-down map of the world.
There is - it is argued here - a more troubling effect of thinking through the
geographies of resistance, that resistance is 'uncoupled' from domination. This is
not to say that domination and resistance have nothing to do with one another, but
that there are distinct spatialised modalities of control, and that resistance might
have its own spatialities ... " (Pile 1997: .2).
This understanding of power is contrary to the concept, discussed above, of
'entanglements of power' forwarded by Sharp et al. (2000). These authors argue for an
understanding of power in which "power is operative in moments of both domination and
resistance, and hence can be assessed in both positive and negative terms" (Sharp et al.
2000:3). I will elaborate on this work shortly.
42
In Pile's (1997:3) understanding, "...resistance seeks to occupy, deploy and create
alternative spatialities from those defined through oppression and exploitation." These
are new spaces, appropriated by resistance. Pile (1997) writes that: "resistance may
involve spatialities that lie beyond 'power' ... " (p.5) and" ...may well operate between the
spaces authorised by authority, rather than simply scratching itself into the deadly spaces
of oppression and exploitation" (p.13).
However, the suggestion that power relations might produce discontinuous
spaces, which resistance might transgress or move between, implies that there
could be other places in the map of resistance. One possible way to remap
resistance, then, is to think about the ways in which power relations are
incomplete, fluid, liable to rupture, inconsistence, awkward and ambiguous. Now,
spaces of resistance can be seen as not only partially connected to, but also
partially dislocated from, spaces of domination (Pile 1997: 14).
Hence, spaces of resistance are 'uncoupled' from spaces of domination. Resistance
operates outside power.
Pile (1997:27) writes that "at the heart of questions of resistance lie questions of
spatiality - the politics of lived spaces." He argues that resistance is not defined by the
power to change things, but by " ... the meanings that social actions take on in the practice
of everyday life" (Pile 1997:14). This creation of new spaces in which people execute
resistance through their everyday practices is the topic of interest for those geographers
advancing the concept of 'autonomous geographies', which will be discussed below.
43
Entangled Domination and Resistance
As mentioned above, Sharp et al. (2000) forward a more nuanced understanding
of domination and resistance, one in which there are entangled geographies of power.
Reacting to Pile (and other authors featured in Geographies ofResistance), Sharp et al.
(2000:31) argue that Pile (1997) believes ...
. . .that resistance can somehow slip outside of power, a dream that resistance is
possible because all sorts of other people can also dream of evadingrower... Yet
we also have reservations, chiefly because at root Pile (if not Thrift) disentangles
what we regard as always unremittingly entangled. Ostensibly, he is wishing to
disentangle domination and resistance... but the problem for us is that he tends to
equate power quite straightforwardly with dominating power. ..
The authors argue that in the end, Pile and Keith's (1997) Geographies ofResistance uses
an overly simplistic understanding of power, and thus fails to uncouple domination and
resistance, simply because the two are inextricably linked and exist within one another.
Shape et al. (2000:27) ...
. . .understand the geography of domination/resistance as a contingent and
continuous bundle of relations; a geography that enacts a contested encounter
within and between dominant and resistant practices which are themselves hybrid,
rather than binary, and which are contingent upon and enmeshed within social
networks, communication processes and economic relations.
The authors argue that given this understanding of entangled power, it is important to
recognize that" ... these entanglements are thoroughly spatial and are indeed themselves
inherently geographical" (Sharp et al. 2000:24). The term 'entanglements'
3 Nigel Thrift's "The Still Point: Resistance, expressive embodiment and dance" in Pile and Keith's (1997)
Geographies ofResistance
44
.. .is intended to signal that relations of power are really, crucially and unavoidably
spun out across and through the material spaces of the world. It is within such
spaces that assemblages of people, activities, technologies, institutions, ideas and
dreams all come together, circulate, convene and reconvene - it cannot but be so -
and it is only as a consequence of the spatial entangling together of all these
elements that relations of power are established (Sharp et al. 2000:24).
The entanglements "make power happen" (Sharp et al. 2000:24). Further, the
geographies are not products of power, but are" ...central to the constitution of power
relations" (Sharp et al. 2000:25). For this reason, "dominant spatial organisations have to
be transcended in the creation of both new subjectivities and new possibilities for
relations of power. .. " (Sharp et al. 2000:26). Again, we see the importance of this
creation of new spaces in which people execute resistance in order to create new potential
styles of social organization.
Autonomous Geographies
According to Jenny Pickerill and Paul Chatterton (2006:730) in "Notes towards
autonomous geographies: creation, resistance and self-management as survival tactics,"
the term 'autonomous geographies' describes "spaces where there is a desire to constitute
non-capitalist collective forms of politics, identity and citizenship ... created through a
combination of resistance and creation, and a questioning and challenging of dominant
laws and social norms." The authors argue that" ... autonomous geographies are made
through collective decision-making and autonomous social centers" (Pickerill and
Chatterton 2006:730). These spaces are labeled autonomous because they embody the
ability to freely choose.
45
The authors examine the importance of the 'everyday practices' in the lives of
activists and the ways that protest is not only part of everyday life, but also that everyday
life is sculpted into an alternative process that has benefits for society:
Central to autonomy is an explosive combination of making protest part of
everyday life, but also making life into workable alternatives for a wider social
good. Autonomous geographies are thus about exploring the practicalities of
multiscalar influence - of building a broader oppositional politics through
multiple strategies, beginning by enacting change in everyday lives (Pickerill and
Chatterton 2006:737).
The authors argue that "given that there is no place outside the reach of capitalist
relations, 'new places' have to be created from within, through an attempt - however
complicated, contested and fractured - to alter and challenge everyday places II (Pickerill
and Chatterton 2006:742). The 'everyday places' being challenged are those that are
sculpted by capitalism and globalization.
Many anti-globalization movements, the focus of these authors' inquiries,
combine large and rare attacks or protests with everyday acts of activism. Many of these
groups have an "explicit autonomy agenda" and employ direct democracy and/or
spokescouncils, as well as self-management and voluntary organization (Pickerill and
Chatterton 2006:734).
This multiscalar and mulitfaceted activism manifests itself through global and
regional convergences... , through localized autonomous spaces and alternative
processes (such as social centers, eco-villages, alternative currencies, food
production, housing cooperatives and self-education), and experiments in non-
hierarchical organization and consensus-based decision-making (Pickerill and
Chatterton 2006:731).
46
Of note is the authors' use of the word 'space' when discussing autonomous geographies,
but their use of specific places (in addition to spaces) as examples of these geographies.
Although 'geographies of resistance' also employ the word 'space', there is a more
nuanced understanding of the difference between space and place, namely that, as
Cresswell (2004) describes, place is "a meaningful location" (p.7) while space is "a more
abstract concept than place" (p.8), and can include non-places, such as virtual space.
Conclusion
In Spaces ofHope, David Harvey (2000: 186) argues that:
Any contemporary struggle to envision a reconstruction of the social process has
to confront the problem of how to overthrow the structures (both physical and
institutional) that the free market has itself produced as relatively permanent
features in the world.
He explains that many thinkers with utopian bents have tended to avoid traditional
utopianism and to avoid constructing concrete alternatives to the current modes of social
organization. In response, Harvey outlines what he terms 'dialectical utopianism', a form
of utopianism that is both spatial and temporal (i.e. has form and process). This
dialectical utopianism requires that" ... real political change arises out of simultaneous
and loosely coordinated shifts in both thinking and action across several scales ... "
(Harvey 2000:234). These shifts and scales include the personal as political,
. collectivities, 'militant particularism', institutions, built environments, and the translation
of aspirations to reality, among others. Harvey (2000: 195) opines:
47
There is a time and place in the ceaseless human endeavor to change the world,
when alternative visions, no matter how fantastic, provide the grist for shaping
powerful political forces for change. I believe we are precisely at such a moment.
The groups that 'militant particularism' describes as " ... attempting to build their own
places and communities in order to live differently from the mass of people" are the focus
of my inquiry in this work (Cresswell 2000:61). It is to two particular types of
communities built in an effort to create a way of living different from mainstream
affluence that I will tum in the next chapter: cohousing and ecovillages.
48
CHAPTER IV
"THE AMERICAN DREAM",
INTENTIONAL COMMUNITIES, COHOUSING, AND ECOVILLAGES
Our dependence upon the car and its cohort, the single-family house in the
suburbs, has seriously contributed to the fragmentation of the extended family and
a lower quality of living for more and more people. We can get up in the morning,
get in our car, and drive to work without encountering any other person face to
face. Is this the American Dream? The way our neighborhoods are laid out and
our housing is financed ensures that residential areas are segregated by
economic class, age, and race. Is this the American Dream? It is obvious that the
housing industry has not been a socialljamily/community oriented process, but
merely a way ofdoing business and making a profit, as if a house were like any
other product sold over the counter. Is this the only American Dream? (Norwood
and Smith 1995:18)
Most noticeable since the end of World War II (1945), the suburban home has
been promoted and accepted as a physical embodiment of the 'American Dream' and as
capable of providing for all needs, including happiness, explains James Howard Kunstler
(1993) in The Geography ofNowhere: The Rise and Decline ofAmerica's Man-Made
Landscape. Dolores Hayden (2003:3), in Building Suburbia, explains that suburbia, as
"the dominant American cultural landscape," is a "landscape of the imagination where
Americans situate ambitions for upward mobility and economic security, ideals about
freedom and private property, and longings for social harmony and spiritual uplift." This
landscape privileges individualism; "unlike every other affluent civilization, Americans
have idealized the house and yard rather than the model neighborhood or the ideal town"
(Hayden 2003:5).
49
In the wake of changes in household arrangements, changes in national
demographics, and changes in the environment in the United States, many now hold that
this model is outdated (McCamant and Durrett 1989, 1994; Norwood and Smith 1995). In
Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves, Kathryn McCamant and
Charles Durrett (1994:12) explain that:
The modern single-family detached home, which makes up 67 percent of the
American housing stock, was designed for a nuclear family consisting of a
breadwinning father, a homemaking mother, and two to four children. Today, less
than one-quarter of the United States population lives in such households.
Further, "while the ideals of individualism and the detached single-family house remain
deeply embedded in American culture, changing circumstances are leading many people
to question the continuing emphasis on these elements of the American Dream"
(McCamant and Durrett 1994:199).
Changing household circumstances include a decrease in the size of household
units, an increase in the need for women to work outside the home, an increase in the'
proportion of single parents, the aging of the baby boomers, and an increase in the
number of single people who live alone. Changing demographic circumstances include
rising home costs, increases in the cost of living generally, and loss of blue collar jobs. In
addition, the increasing frequency of mobility for many people results in a lack of a sense
of community (McCamant and Durrett 1989). Ken Norwood and Kathleen Smith
50
(1995:36), in Rebuilding Community in America, hold that "we continue to build and to
live in a form of housing that does not meet our needs as individuals or as a society."
The point Sherry Ahrentzen (1989:xii) raises in the "Introduction" to New
Households, New Housing is well taken: the American" ... single-family house
effectively answers a number of needs for Americans - space, sanitation, security, status,
and privacy ... " However, there are numerous environmental and social consequences of
the current residentiallarrdscape. Norwood and Smith (1995: 14) hold that in spite of the
advantages, the social disadvantages outweigh:
The social isolation of the single family house, apartment, and condo; the physical
separation by ownership rights and fences; the many hours we spend closed off
from each other in our cars; and the fewer opportunities for amiable dialogue with
other people have all contributed to the breakdown of social cohesion and our
capacity to solve shared problems.
The authors hold that the individuality of modem American culture leads not only to
alienation and loneliness, but also to an exponential increase in the consumption of
natural resources by people "living separately, using energy and resources separately, and
bringing separate cars up to the kitchen door" (Norwood and Smith 1995: 17). The
concurrent collapse of the environment, deterioration of the economy, depletion of
natural resources, and the breakdown of our social and cultural support systems are "all
effects of the relentless pursuit, by each successive generation, of a 'higher quality of
living' synonymous with the American Dream" (Norwood and Smith 1995:13).
51
Many Americans are beginning to recognize that the single-family house is not
beneficially socially, economically, or environmentally, and desire other options
(Norwood and Smith 1995). Americans recognize that the things that they crave:
" ... family, community, a sense of belonging - must now be active sought out"
(McCamant and Durrett 1994:9). In addition, there has been increasing acceptance of the
link: between personal material consumption and degradation of the environment (Meltzer
2005).
Some authors argue, as does Kunstler (1993: 112) that" ... to transition to a saner
way of living... will certainly require a transformation of the physical setting for our
civilization, a remaking of the places where we live and work." Hayden (2002:67-68)
holds that:
Between the giant corporations and the tiny houses, environmental alternatives
require new social, economic, and architectural innovations as well as new,
energy-saving inventions. As environmentalists continue to develop a very
effective accounting of the wasteful, destructive patterns of present resource use,
reconceptualization of the private home will lead to more concern for
neighborhood. Neighborhood scale may be the most productive issue for green
architecture in the decades ahead.
Mainstream housing, Louise Crabtree (2005), in "Sustainable Housing Development in
Urban Australia" argues, must move away from private ownership and the
commodification of land and housing.
Luckily, there are rural, suburban, and urban design strategies that respond to the
consequences of our present form of habitation and attempt to make places of meaning
52
that are more conducive to social, economic, and environmental sustainability. There are
new housing forms emerging that can offer economic security and community support
(Norwood and Smith 1995). At the same time, these new housing arrangements can help
develop the sense of community that Graham Meltzer (2005) , in Sustainable
Community: Learning from the cohousing model, argues has been shown to increase
environmentally-conscious behavior.
Two alternatives are cohousing and the ecovillage. Meltzer (2005: 15) tells that
"...cohousing has developed in direct response to perceived social problems of the late
twentieth century - personal alienation and the breakdown of community, in particular."
Cohousing is basically an architectural design style that is meant to facilitate interaction
within a community whose physical layout has been designed by the residents
(McCamant and Durrett 1989, 1994). Ecovillages are distinct from cohousing yet share
an emphasis on building a sense of community. Ecovillages are resident-driven
communities that seek to live in an environmentally, socially, and economically
sustainable manner, while demonstrating this lifestyle to a wider audience. Ecovillage
and cohousing communities are intentional communities, which can be understood as a
group of people with a shared set of values or beliefs that live together, in a community,
to practice those values (Meltzer 2005). In the "Introduction" to Rebuilding Community
in America, Ken Norwood (l995:xvii) explains that the growing success of these new
community arrangements "is testimony that a redefinition of the American Dream is
53
occurring, suited to peoples' changing needs and desires ... " In order to fully understand
where these communities are going, a summary of where we have been is required.
"The American Dream"
Scholars, such as Ahrentzen (1989) and Harvey (1989), argue that the residential
landscape in the United States is largely a product of the post-World War II era. Dolores
Hayden (2002: 15) in Redesigning the American Dream, tells that after World War II
(1939-1945), returning veterans replaced women in the work force, women like 'Rosie
the Riveter' who had taken positions in production and manufacturing to help the war
effort. Wartime housing had been developed to address equality and integration, and
often housed people of all races: female laborers with children, as well as men. In
contrast, post-war developments of single-family homes separated the household from
the paid labor force and public life, and also embodied Victorian-era gendered
stereotypes about the woman's place being in the home. Veterans were encouraged to
pursue suburban homeownership to help transform the American economy and city.
Younger white workers left the city with their families, headed for the suburbs, leaving
blacks, Hispanics, and others behind in the inner cities. In addition, the promotion of
single-family homeownership was accompanied by a concurrent discouragement of
alternative housing forms, the use of housing starts as an economic indicator, and the
growth of the housing industry (Hayden 2002).
54
The housing industry grew and was intimately intertwined with the real estate,
banking, manufacturing, and transportation industries. Hayden (2003: 128) explains that
"the postwar suburbs were constructed at great speed, but they were deliberately planned
to maximize consumption of mass-produced goods and minimize the responsibility of the
developers to create public space and public services." In this way, "the dream house
replaced the ideal city as the spatial representation of American hopes for the good life"
(Hayden 2002:55). The twin goals of building housing to help the economy and putting
veterans to work while removing women from the workforce were conflated, so that the
economy depended on women's place in the home (Hayden 2002).
To explain the changes just mentioned, a brief history of the factors contributing
to the development ofpost-WW II housing is in order. The 1934 National Housing Act
solidified government involvement in the 'private' housing industry by establishing the
Federal Housing Administration (FHA), explains Gwendolyn Wright (1981), in Building
the Dream. Hayden (2003) tells that the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) provided
funding to encourage the modernization of old, and construction of new, homes. This
funding included the modernization of existing homes, the purchase of electrical
appliances, new home mortgages, and the insuring of banks that advanced developers
money for the acquisition of land.
After World War II, in the context of McCarthy-era criticism of public housing
and planned communities as well as the perceived necessity of the provision of Federal
55
Housing Administration (FHA) aid to big developers, a specific strategy to combat the
post-War housing shortage emerged. This strategy was to boom the housing industry:
build as many houses as possible as fast as possible (while paying little attention to
community planning). Wright (1981 :246) explains that based on this development model,
the 1.5 million new housing units built in the two years after WWII were insufficient to
meet the demand of the 2.8 million new families that formed during the same time
period. Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck (2000: 11), in Suburban
Nation, note that "town planning, until the 1930s considered a humanistic discipline
based upon history, aesthetics, and culture, became a technical profession based upon
numbers."
In 1944, the Veterans Administration (VA, now the U.S. Department of Veteran's
Mfairs) began a mortgage guarantee program for veterans as part of the GI Bill of Rights
(Wright 1981). Banks backed by the FHA and the VA gave huge loans for new home
construction and no-down-payment mortgages, and this resulted in an expanding housing
industry (Hayden 2002; Wright 1981). The emphasis on new homes, argue Duany et al.
(2000:8), " ...discouraged the renovation of existing housing stock, while turning their
[the FHA and VA's] back on the construction of row houses, mixed-use buildings, and
other urban housing types."
Levittown, a development built in the late 1940s on Long Island, New York, by
William Levitt and Sons, has come to represent the quintessential physical embodiment
56
of housing industry principles of the time. Levitt and Sons' vertical integration of
suppliers and assembly-line style construction of homes resulted in the rapid building of
Cape Cod-style homes that would be sold only to white men and their families. The FHA
would not approve mortgages for female-headed households or for racially integrated
communities at that time (Hayden 2002).
In Levittown, the developers produced 17,000 houses, but with no master plan or
infrastructure, and minimal public facilities (Hayden 2003). There were multiple
Levittowns built across the country, and other developers followed suit. Because
developers did not create the necessary infrastructure, government bodies at the federal,
state, and local levels were handed the responsibility of creating adequate infrastructure
and social services to meet the needs of new homeowners, and governments often needed
federal subsidies to do so. Regardless of local climate, history, aesthetics, or spirituality,
the Levittown Cape-Cod and ranch-style homes became the design style most aspired to
and the "...the single most powerful symbol of the dream of upward mobility and home
ownership for American families" (Hayden 2002:23). And, "to many Americans, the
suburban house seemed the only way to provide a good family life" (Wright 1981:258).
'Moving up' became part of the 'American Dream' (Duany et al. 2000).
In addition to FHA financing and VA mortgages, developers such as Levitt and
Sons were also subsidized by new federal highway programs: Large-scale government
road-building began in earnest in the mid-1950s, supported by the 1944 Federal Highway
57
Act and the 1956 Federal-Aid Highway Act (Hayden 2003; Wright 1981). As a result, in
addition to the privileging of automobiles in residential and commercial building
construction (strip malls, shopping malls, big box stores), 'bedroom communities' and
'edge nodes' began to develop outside existing developed areas, from which people
would commute to the city for work. In fact, " ...what automobile manufactures wanted
was to eliminate all other transportation choices" and this desire was realized through
blatant collusion (Hayden 2003:159). As John Foster (1999:115) explains in The
Vulnerable Planet:
... the enormous present-day dependence of the United States on cars, which today
[1999] account for 90 percent of all travel, can be traced to the deliberate
dismantling of the nation's earlier mass transportation system. From the 1930s to
the 1950s, General Motors (GM) ... operating in conjunction with Standard Oil
and Firestone Tire, systematically bought up many of the nation's electric
streetcar lines, converting them to busses ... Meanwhile, GM used its
monopolistic control of bus production and of the Greyhound Corporation, on the
one hand, and its monopoly in the production of locomotives, on the other hand,
to ensure the growing displacement of bus and rail traffic by private automobiles
in intercity ground transport - essentially undercutting itself in intercity mass
transit in order to make higher profits off increased automobile traffic.
While private entrepreneurs were profiting from the sale of automobiles and the changing
patterns of mobility, governments were left with the responsibility of creating the
infrastructure. Duany et al. (2000:96) argue that -" ... subsidized automobile use is the
single largest violation of the free-market principle in U.S. fiscal policy."
This form of development indoctrinated new suburbanites into consumer culture,
argues Hayden (2003). Not only were people completely dependent on their cars, but
they also consumed household appliances, such as TVs, which often were included in
58
their new-horne mortgages. The strategies used to reach the goal of building as many
houses as possible as cheaply as possible for as much profit as possible resulted in the
complete disregard of solar orientation of houses, solar heating, and housing insulation.
Although solar technologies emerged in the late 1800s and were promoted during World
War II, American utility companies, such as General Electric (GE), promoted the
excessive consumption of electricity made from cheap coal and oil, in order to bolster
their profits. This resulted not only in newly enlarged electricity demands to heat houses,
but also to cool them, with newly introduced and popular air conditioning. In fact, the
utility companies, developers, and builders often colluded to promote each other's
industry, a practice not outlawed by Congress until 1978 (Hayden 2003).
Advertising and the media played no small role in this expansion of consumer
culture and the promotion of the whitewashed image of the suburbs. Sitcoms and
advertisements during the 1950s were televised in the suburban horne. In the 'sitcom
suburb' ,
Race and gender were set against class in a particularly painful way. Racial
segregation, always part of the suburban experience, usually managed through
deed restrictions, was now enforced by government loan policies and local
bankers' red-lining. So was gender discrimination in lending (Hayden 2003:147).
This housing type privileged nuclear families over extended families, men over women,
whites over people of color, middle- and high-income over low-income, and young over
old. With the coordinated efforts of the" ...real estate, banking, and construction sectors,
59
and the relative weakness of the planning and design professions," as well as FHA
developer subsides, "sprawl became the national housing policy" (Hayden 2003: 151).
Redlining and restrictive covenants at this time were openly used to discriminate
in housing based on race and ethnicity. The FHA would not underwrite or guarantee
mortgages on houses in areas dominated by black residents. Banks followed suit and
would not issue private loans or mortgages in areas that had been redlined. Restrictive
covenants prevented suburban integration, supposedly based on the premise of property
value protection. "These policies played a critical role in the deterioration of stable,
working-class communities ... " and contributed to the formation of black ghettos (Wright
1981:247).
The 1949 Housing Act responded to the continued post-War housing shortage by
" ...guarantee[ing] builders and bankers more substantial profits on large residential
developments" (Wright 1981 :246). After the Housing Act, public housing agencies began
constructing housing for poor people unable to afford single-family suburban homes. The
subsidies received for the physical construction of low-income housing paled in
comparison to those received by new homeowners, which included the FHA funding, VA
mortgages, the highway system, and tax deductions. In addition, many private developers
were illegally profiting from building public housing developments by borrowing more
than the cost of construction from banks and pocketing the surplus (Wright 1981).
Hayden (2002: 167) tells us that "public housing projects in New York, Chicago, Boston,
60
and smaller places were, in the 1950s and early 1960s, usually grim, brick structures
badly sited in islands of asphalt, whether three stories high or thirty." These
developments were influenced by Le Corbusier, an early 20th century modernist architect
who designed an 'organized' way to house large numbers of poor, inner-city residents,
based on his model of conglomerates of skyscrapers set in green spaces, termed a
"machine for modem living" (Harvey 1989:256). Le Corbusier is also famous for
inspiring the low-income housing development project, Pruitt-Igoe (Saint Louis,
Missouri), which was considered unlivable and was dynamited in July of 1972 (Harvey
1989; Hayden 2002).1
Although alternative forms of housing, such as cluster housing, emerged in the
1960s,
...townhouses and trailers and cooperative buildings were consistently presented
as inadequate, makeshift substitutes for detached suburban dwellings. The new
housing developments were posed as a threat to the postwar suburban ideal. ..
they were seldom connected to a vision of cultural pluralism, different kinds of
family life, and more diverse communities (Wright 1981 :261).
Since the 1980s, strip malls, shopping malls, big box stores, 'bedroom communities', and
'edge nodes' have proliferated, and "new development on the rural fringes of edge nodes
has expanded" (Hayden 2003: 181). These developments have encroached on agricultural
land and wildlife habitat, and caused numerous forms of environmental degradation.
Hayden (2003: 184) argues that "fringe development surely reflected the desire to escape
1 This event, which took place at 3:32 pm on July 15th, 1972, was identified by Christopher Jenks as the end
of modernist architecture and the commencement of post-modern architecture, as well as the end of
attempts by architect to remedy social issues through architectural design (Harvey 1989, Hayden 2002).
61
central cities with declining infrastructure, pollution, and poor schools, as well as ugly,
automobile-scale edge nodes, in favor of places with old-fashioned, pedestrian-scale
Main Streets, where residents could take pride in small town character." Many people
accepted more numerous and longer commutes to live in the fringe. And the fringe
lifestyle required even more space. Some of the bigger houses came to be termed
'McMansions.' Dual incomes became increasingly necessary to maintain such
households, resulting in latchkey kids and second-shift moms, who have two jobs, one
paid, outside the household, and the other unpaid within (Hayden 2003).
Consequences of "the American Dream"
As a result, Hayden (2002:60) argues, "dream houses got out of control
economically, environmentally, and socially because they carried unacknowledged costs:
they wasted available land; they required large amounts of energy consumption; and they
demanded a great deal of unpaid female labor." In addition, the dominance of the single-
family suburban home has increased inequality at multiple scales and altered Americans'
ability to perceive solutions to social and economic ills. The consequences of the current
conceptual and physical structure of both cities and suburbs are many.
The environmental costs of the structure of our built environment are profound.
With the privatization of households and the destruction or isolation from community
facilities, each family must purchase appliances and consumer goods for their individual
households, including refrigerators, stoves, and home furnishings. Many early
62
" ... appliances were often designed to increase rather than minimize the use of energy: in
some cases the same manufacturers sold both consumer appliances and municipal
generating equipment, as a reinforcement of corporate interests" (Hayden 2002:65).
Water usage also increased with the use of new appliances such as clothes washers and
dishwashers, having dramatic effects in arid and semi-arid environments. In addition,
these appliances expanded "...the American practice of using water as a medium of
carrying waste away, rather than preserving water for needed human use and recycling
garbage and human waste as compost" (Hayden 2002:65). This growth has other negative
environmental effects, including a reduction in air and water quality; the loss of open
space, wildlife habitat, and aesthetic qualities; the loss of biological diversity; and other
threats to ecosystems (Logan and Molotch 1987).
The social costs of the built environment are many. Kunstler (1993 :59, emphasis
added) argues that:
Modernism did its immense damage in these ways: by divorcing the practice of
building from the history and traditional meanings of building; by promoting a
species of urbanism that destroyed age-old social arrangements . .. ; and by
creating a physical setting for man that failed to respect the limits of scale,
growth, and the consumption ofnatural resources, or to respect the lives of other
living things. The result of Modernism, especially in America, is a crisis of the
human habitat: cities ruined by corporate gigantism ... , public buildings and
public spaces unworthy ofhuman affection, vast sprawling suburbs that lack any
sense'of community, housing that the un-rich cannot afford to live in, a slavish
obeisance to the needs of automobiles and their dependant industries at the
expense ofhuman needs, and a gathering ecological calamity . ..
Hayden (2002:57) connects Kunstler's critique to American dissatisfaction:
63
The personal happiness of many Americans has been undermined by poorly
designed housing and public space, yet few of us employ the language of real
estate development, architecture, or urban planning to trace the contours of
loneliness, boredom, weariness, discrimination, or financial worry in our lives ...
In part this is because we think of our miseries as being caused by personal
problems rather than social problems.
Duany et al. (2000) concur with Hayden's (2002) assessment in that the physical design
of the suburbs has led to many of these negative consequences.
As mentioned above, there are currently rural, suburban, and urban design
strategies that respond to these social and environmental consequences. These housing
strategies include cohousing and ecovillages. Both of these types of communities attempt
to make places of meaning that are more conducive to social, economic, and
environmental sustainability. And, both drew inspiration from the intentional
communities that preceded them.
Intentional Communities
The concept of community is not unproblematic. As Meltzer (2005:2) explains, a
simple, non-geographical definition characterizes community as having "oo.a certain
quality or measure of social interaction within a group and... shared ties or common
interests of its members." More traditional definitions of community include " ... three
essential characteristics: social interaction, shared ties and common geographical
location" (Meltzer 2005:2). Hence, 'community' falls squarely within the realm of
geographic inquiry.
64
Contrary to the homogenizing concept of community that is status quo in common
parlance, as well as implicit in many traditional definitions, Panelli and Welch (2005), in
"Why community?" argue for a more complex understanding. They explain that:
Geographers have increasingly recognized that communities are not homogeneous
social formations but contain great diversity and are meaningful in a variety of
material, relational and political ways. This has resulted in the apparently
contradictory notion of 'community with difference' ... (Panelli and Welch
2005:1589).
The authors argue that because the social relations that take place in community" ... can
be observed in practices or performances that are spatially constituted," these practices
and spaces can help us understand the" ... dominant meanings and relations of
community ... " (Panelli and Welch 2005:1593). These practices and spaces illuminate the
ways in which communities are vulnerable to alteration and struggle via both internal and
external forces, as well as the diversity that exists within 'community.'
With this understanding that the concept of 'community' is complex and
heterogeneous, the following discussion of communities may homogenize the members
of the communities, as well as the types of communities, discussed. However, a detailed
and nuanced explanation of the differences, struggles, and changes that exist within each
type of community would require a meticulous attention to context, relations, practices,
and spaces that is beyond the scope of this review.
65
This given, the first type of community to discuss is the intentional community.
Meltzer (2005:2) defines an intentional community as:
... a group of mostly unrelated people living together and dedicated by intent to
specific common values or goals ... Intentional communities generally place a high
value on the sharing of land, housing, buildings and facilities. Shared facilities
symbolise communal values and goals, and serve to represent the group as a
collective...
There are many types of intentional communities, such as cohousing, ecovillages,
Kibbutzim, religious/spiritual communities, egalitarian communities, communes, and
student co-ops (Meltzer 2005).
In Geoph Kozeny's (2005a) "In Community, Intentionally," the author argues that
intentional communities are created based on a dream of a better life, a life that
incorporates something that is apparently missing in mainstream life. He explains that:
All intentional communities have idealism in common - each one was founded on
a vision of living in a better way, usually in response to something perceived as
lacking in the broader culture. Many communities aspire to provide a supportive
environment for the development of members' awareness, abilities, and spiritual
growth. Most seek to create a life that will satisfy shared human cravings:
security, family, relationship, fellowship, mutual cooperation, creativity and self-
expression, as well as a sense of place, a sense of belonging. (Kozeny 2005a: 12)
Intentional communities incorporate an intention to create a more supportive and
satisfying way of life.
Avoiding the homogenization of difference within and among communities
(discussed above), Norwood and Smith (1995) argue that because of the uniqueness of
each community and the characteristics of its members, a unifying definition is
66
impossible to create. However, they identity several characteristics common to
intentional communities:
Many of these communities practice a high level of group process, gender
equality, and democratic self-management, and make use of consensus, conflict-
resolution, and personal growth techniques ... Instead of retreating from society,
many see themselves as building a new and better society, while making the best
use of conventional institutions (Norwood and Smith 1995:45).
Norwood and Smith (1995:44) explain that although many current "Intentional
Communities have formed around a combination of agrarian, ecological, spiritual,
religious, and political orientations" that guide the everyday lives of residents, these
communities lack the charismatic leaders and the rigid principles and dogmas of past
Utopian communities and socialist cooperatives. Rather, current intentional communities
result from the need people feel" ...to create an alternative to a stressful and impersonal
society" (Norwood and Smith 1995:45). Kozeny (2005a: 13) agrees, arguing that the
defining characteristic of those who are involved in intentional communities is that they
"...are not satisfied with the status quo."
In "State of the Communities Movement," Laird Schaub (2005) explains that
people choose intentional communities for various reasons, including a desire to remove
oneself "...from a world that doesn't work and creating a sanctuary that does,"
"experimenting with innovative relationships to place, to sustainable technologies, or to
money," and the cultivation of "spirit" (Schaub 2005: 19). In addition, those who live in
intentional communities often have a commitment to cooperation, mutual responsibility,
and to the promotion of the concept of community to the broader society (Norwood and
------------------------------------------ ------ ----
67
Smith 1995). The majority of those involved in intentional communities were raised in
mainstream culture (Schaub 2005).
Although the affluence levels of various communities vary, the age,
socioeconomic status, and educational attainment level of individual members of these
communities is not reflective of demographics of the wider population. Kozeny
(2005a:14) tells us that currently, within intentional communities, "there is a
disproportionate representation of people in the 25- to 50- year old range... [and] the
well-educated white middle class is represented in proportions greater than in the
mainstream." Regardless of the fact that many of these communities are on the periphery
of the mainstream, the values of the members of intentional communities are often in line
with those of conventional folks.
All intentional communities claim an interest in diversity, but the majority of
participants are white, middle-class, well-educated environmentalists and liberals
(Norwood and Smith 1995; Schaub 2005). Schaub (2005) explains that there are tensions
that exist within the communities movement because of this exclusivity. The affluent,
who have been raised with privilege and money in mainstream culture, find it difficult to
function in situations with more equitable distribution of power. In addition, those in
communities that were created by affluent, educated people find it difficult to make
working class people feel welcome. The author explains that many communities make
68
further exclusions, by not making many special provisions for people with disabilities or
the elderly.
While the majority of intentional communities are rural (farms or forests), many
are now appearing in urban settings (large houses, converted buildings, or existing
blocks). Often, those forming intentional communities will, as a group, build or re-build
their homes themselves. Common to these developments are "natural energy, self-
reliance, and economic independence through community-based enterprises" (Norwood
and Smith 1995:58).
There are myriad barriers to the creation and maintenance of intentional
communities, including laws, regulations (especially zoning regulations), issues with
common ownership and financing of property, interactions with neighbors, and
propaganda. Even so, Norwood and Smith (1995) identify 350 intentional communities in
the United States at the time of their writing. Schaub (2005) argues that 0.03 % of the
North American population, or 100,000 people, live in an intentional community, at the
time of writing. Globally, intentional communities can be found in Israel, Australia,
Canada, Europe, India, and other countries (Norwood and Smith 1995).
History ofIntentional Communities and Shared Housing
Sigrid Hallin (1991), in Planning for a New Everyday Reality, explains that in the
19th century, many of the first intentional communities and shared housing arrangements
69
were founded on the writings of the French utopian, philosopher, and socialist Charles
Fourier. In "Early European Collective Habitation", Norbert Schoenauer (1989:47) tells
that Fourier " ...proposed the formation of a cooperative society based on social units ...
inhabiting a common building with a new domestic arrangement - centralized kitchen
service." This idea of centralized household amenities was increasingly accepted,
especially in Europe, by the end of the 19th century.
Also during the 19th and early 20th centuries, as Karen A. Franck (1989) explains
in "Overview of Collective and Shared Housing," a variety of collective housing and
settlements emerged in North America, including utopian communities, as well as
religious and secular communities. Most of these communities were rural, especially
those formed between 1820 and 1850 (Franck 1989). These communal settlements had
between 12 and 3000 residents, and even though some were quite short lived, others
lasted many years, even to the current day.
Hallin (1991:35) explains that many of the intentional communities that began at
that time were, or still are:
... characterized by a strong social or religious conviction shared among the
members and they tend to be isolated and more or less self-supporting agrarian
societies. The Shaker communities, for example, strove to make their villages an
earthly heaven and practiced gender equality, common ownership of goods,
celibacy and pacifism... In Canada, the agrarian communes are represented by the
Hutterites ...
70
The Hutterite colonies still exist, and while the majority of them are in Canada, there are
still colonies in the United States and other countries as well.
In addition to rural religious communities, there was also secular shared housing
emerging in North America. Because of the lack of common religious or philosophical
convictions, these are not considered intentional communities (Franck 1989). Many new
styles of collective housing emerged in the United States during the 19th century. In New
York, for instance, there were apartment hotels (a.k.a. family hotels), which:
... offered permanent residence in private suites of living rooms and bedrooms,
supplemented by shared dining rooms and parlors. Middle-class families with
children and young couples often lived in such buildings (Franck 1989: 17).
As discussed by Elizabeth Cromley (1989) in "Apartments and Collective Life in
Nineteenth-Century New York," New York also had cooperative/collective apartments,
such as the Hudson View Gardens established in 1924 (Cromley 1989; Franck 1989).
This type of shared housing included services for residents (such as a restaurant, barber
shop, and maid service), as well as a variety of dwelling styles, from family apartments to
private rooms with shared kitchens. Cooperative/collective apartments were especially
popular in the 1870s through the 1890s, and the people who lived there had conventional,
mainstream lives. In addition, there were cooperative living clubs, such as the Jane Club
in Chicago, established in 1898 for single, young, women in the workforce (Franck
1989). This type of shared housing had private bedrooms, and a shared social room and
kitchen.
71
During this time, similar types of shared housing were being established in
Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Switzerland, England, the United Soviet Socialist Republic
(U.S.S.R.), and Austria (Franck 1989; Schoenauer 1989). In these urban communities,
Franck (1989:18) explains,
...meal preparation and other housekeeping tasks were performed by building
staff, and the buildings were designed for various types of households, including
families with children. Collective housing in Europe, however, was more often
part of a larger political or social agenda than it was in the United States.
In Denmark, during the early 20th century, builder Otto Fick developed a new model for
apartment living, which would lead to the development of the kollektivhus (or collective
house), the first of which was built in 1903. This new model, which included multiple
residences and services, was most often developed by local authorities or housing
professionals (McCamant and Durrett 1989; Schoenauer 1989). This model would very
soon be imitated in Scandinavia and other European countries. In Sweden, the first
collective apartment, Hemgarden in Stockholm, was completed in 1909, and the first
collective house in 1935 (Schoenauer 1989).
Schoenauer (1989) explains that in other parts of Europe, collective housing also
gained steam in the early 1900s. In Germany, 1909 saw the completion of five collective
houses with shared kitchens, based on a 1901 book by social democrat Lily Braun in
which she proposed "housekeeping cooperatives" (Schoenauer 1989:55). The following
year, an apartment building with a shared kitchen was completed. Switzerland saw the
72
initiation of the first collective housing project in 1915. At the same time, England was
developing catering flats (similar to apartment hotels) and cooperative quadrangles
(based on the ideas of British urban planner Ebenezer Howard). The first cooperative
quadrangle in England was completed in 1913 (Homesgarth in Letchworth), and the
second in 1915 (Meadow Way Green, also in Letchworth). In Russia, new shared housing
similar to the kollektivhus was being built as early as 1919. Schoenauer (1989) tells that
between 1926 and 1930, 30% of all new residential accommodations built in Russia were
shared housing. However, the 1930s saw the beginnings of continued debates about the
benefits and disadvantages of collective housing (Shoenauer 1989).
Also during the early 20th century, the Israeli kibbutz, which celtainly can be
considered an intentional community, emerged. Hallin (1991:36) explains: "the kibbutz
developed as an unusually egalitarian and democratic society, with an ideological
insistence on complete equality and direct democracy." In these communities, people
both live and work together. At the time of writing, Hallin (1991) reports that, 260
kibbutzim house 3% of Israel's population. The Israeli kibbutz still exists today.
As discussed above, following World War II, the United States saw a precipitous
decline in collective living arrangements. Franck (1989:4) explains that at this time,
...the single-family detached house, long an American ideal, became affordable to
many more families. Prime along its characteristics are spatial and social privacy
and self-sufficiency: ideally it is to be occupied only by members of a single
household who are related to each other by blood or marriage; no spaces or
73
facilities are to be shared with other households; and all household tasks are to be
performed by each household, separately.
Privatization and isolation became the norm, for both homes and the people occupying
them. At this time, communities in which people both worked and lived became
extremely rare (Hallin 1991). And, the types of housing with central dining became of
use only to special needs groups, such as students and the elderly (Franck 1989).
There was a surge in the popularity of collective housing and intentional
communities in the 1960s and 1970s, most well known by the 'hippie communes' of that
time. And, there has been a recent surge in interest in collective housing and intentional
communities since the 1990s. Schaub (2005) argues that recent changes in the
communities movement are distinct from those of a generation ago, for several reasons.
First, the prevalence of computers reduces certain geographic barriers. For example,
telecommuting makes living in community easier. Second, the increased laws and zoning
regulation of recent times pose new and unique challenges, making developing new
communities more difficult. And third, there are now people over 50 years old coming to
shared housing and intentional communities for the first time, more than ever before,
adding to the diversity of these communities.
The current surge in interest in shared housing and intentional communities has
much to offer contemporary society. Drawing from the work of Dolores Hayden (1977),
in Seven American Utopias, Hallin (1991 :36) posits that:
74
The importance of flexible and open-ended plans, user participation in the design
process, a balance between private and communal spaces, the physical
connections between private and communal spaces, innovative design, and
simplification and standardization, are important principles that can be gleaned
from these early experiments in communal living.
Cohousing, which will be discussed next, is a more recent type of intentional community
that takes these architectural components discussed by Hallin into consideration as part of
an attempt to physically design a settlement that deepens the sense of community among
residents.
Cohousing
Though some, such as McCamant and Durrett (1994) and Franck (1989) argue
that cohousing is not an intentional community because of the lack of lack of common
religious or philosophical convictions and the lack of charismatic leaders, others argue
that cohousing is a form of intentional community. Meltzer (2005:2) believes that
cohousing can indeed be considered an intentional community because these "...groups
form with the explicit intention of creating a socially cohesive and mutually supportive
community." The common value set that is characteristic of intentional communities can
be found in cohousing residents' valuing the development of community.
McCamant and Durrett (1994:17), in introducing the concept of cohousing to the
American public in 1988 with the publication of Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach
to Housing Ourselves (originally published in 1988), define cohousing; they state that
"based on democratic principles, cohousing developments espouse no ideology other than
75
the desire for a more practical and social home environment." In "Cohousing in
Denmark", McCamant and Durrett (1989:95) beautifully summarize the characteristics of
cohousing:
Each household has a private residence and shares extensive common facilities
with the larger community. The common facilities typically include a [common
house with a] kitchen and a dining room where dinners are served two to seven
nights a week; children's playrooms, which also may house organized child-care
and after-school programs; workshops; a meeting/living room; and laundry
facilities. Although individual dwelling units are designed to function self-
sufficiently and include their own kitchens, the common facilities, and
particularly the common dinners, are an important aspect of community life [both
socially and practically].
Norwood and Smith (1995:57) add that:
The basic layout of these communities consists of approximately 20 to 30 (or
more) private units of various sizes clustered around village-like courts or
streets ... Extensive shared gardens and orchards, recreation areas, and open space
are common features ...
Cohousing is a particular architectural design style and development process that is meant
to facilitate community interaction and deepen social ties.
In "Designing Neighbourhoods for Social Interaction", 10 Williams (2005:201)
states that residents of cohousing communities are of various ages and religions, and have
various interests and household structures, "however, in terms of affluence, social class,
race, education and attitudes cohousers are a fairly homogeneous group." Most cohousing
communities are located close to metropolitan areas so that the building sites are
affordable, but work, school, and other urban amenities are not far off (McCamant and
Durrett 1989).
76
While there can be variations in development size, design, location, mission,
vision, priorities and type of ownership structure2, there are several common
characteristics historically shared by cohousing communities. McCamant and Durrett
(1989, 1994:43) argue that there are four characteristics that are always incorporated into
cohousing communities:
These four characteristics - participatory process, intentional neighborhood
design, common facilities, and resident management - have come to define
cohousing. None of these is unique, but the consistent combination of all four is.
Each characteristic builds on the others and contributes to the success of the
whole.
Given that the combination of these four characteristics is essential to cohousing, and that
they are consistently found in all cohousing communities, a brief discussion is in order.
Characteristics of Cohousing
In the participatory development process, "residents organize and participate in
the planning and design process for the housing development, and are responsible as a
group for all final decisions ... " (McCamant and Durrett 1994:38). Residents initiate the
planning and design of their community, and control it throughout the development
process. Even though the participatory design process is fraught with frustrations and
time lags, the bonds that form during this intense time bolster the sense of community
2 McCamant and Durrett (1989:98) explain that: "[c]ohousing developments employ a variety of financing
mechanisms and ownership structures: privately owned condominiums, limited-equity cooperatives, rentals
owned by nonprofit organizations, and a combination of private ownership and nonprofit rental units."
77
among residents once the development is built and occupied (McCamant and Durrett
1994).
The second characteristic consistently incorporated into cohousing is intentional
neighborhood design: a design that encourages a sense of neighborhood and community
among residents (McCamant and Durrett 1989, 1994). Residents-to-be have a strong
desire to facilitate the development of a sense of community and belonging through the
physical layout of the community. As McCamant and Durrett (1989: 100) explain:
Beginning with the initial programming, residents consistently emphasize design
aspects that 'increase the possibilities for social contact' rather than those that
protect individual privacy.
Although a sense of community is established through the participatory design process, it
is sustained via the physical design of the community (McCamant and Durrett 1994).·
Design that encourages interaction can be seen in the characteristic layout of
cohousing communities. This layout includes two rows of housing, on either side of a
pedestrian street. Cars are not permitted within cohousing communities, but are relegated
to the periphery. The entrances to the homes face each other, so that residents have a
distinct transition between the public spaces (i.e. the common facilities, shared walkways,
and home entrances) and the private space (home interiors). In addition, the homes
themselves tend to incorporate a transition from public to private space. Usually the
kitchens are facing the shared walkway (public), and living quarters are on the opposite
side of the house (private) (McCamant and Durrett 1994).
78
Williams (2005:222) explains " ... that the key design features that encourage
social interaction are: proximity to buffer zones; good-quality, accessible, functional,
diverse communal spaces with ample opportunity for surveillance; and finally, private
units (with restricted facilities)." Residents need a "balance between public and private,"
according to Meltzer (2005: 120), so that they" ...can control their exposure and
accessibility to others." This is certainly a critical issue within cohousing communities,
but the presence of both private homes and common facilities allows residents to create
this balance (Franck 1989).
The third characteristic of cohousing is the presence of common facilities. The
most important common facility is the common house, which includes a kitchen that is
used for common meals that are prepared by several members of the community for all
residents. Other facilities generally included in the common house consist of shared
laundry facilities, children's and teen's rooms, guest rooms, and office spaces. In
addition, common facilities can include community gardens, open space, playgrounds,
and other recreational areas.
As well as encouraging interaction among residents, the common facilities are
" ...designed for daily use, to supplement private living areas" (McCamant and Durrett
1994:38). This allows for a reduction in the size of the private homes, another
characteristic of cohousing communities (Meltzer 2005). This tendency towards smaller
79
homes results from the common facilities that can, as an extension of residents' private
homes, house shared amenities that each individual home no longer needs to incorporate
independently, such as guest rooms, laundry facilities, and office space (McCamant and
Durrett 1989; Meltzer 2005). Many communities deliberately reduce the size of their
private homes in order to be able to incorporate more and better common facilities
(McCamant and Durrett 1989). In fact, Meltzer (2005) explains that cohousing homes are
half the size of average new homes in America. And, cohousers " .. .live in more compact
building types than they did previously - contrary to an overwhelming national
preference for detached family dwellings" (Meltzer 2005:122). Thus, the benefits of
common facilities are both social and practical (McCamant and Durrett 1994).
The final characteristic common to all cohousing developments is the resident
responsibility for the ongoing management of the community (McCamant and Durrett
1989; Williams 2005). After the community is built, residents use community meetings
as a forum in which to make decisions that involve all community members. This self-
governance can employ a variety of decision-making structures, consensus and voting
strategies being popular among them. In addition to self-governance, residents are
responsible for the ongoing physical maintenance of the community. Usually, all adults
must participate in work groups, which either rotate duties or are allotted specific task
sets (i.e. landscape maintenance, common house cleaning, common meal preparation)
(McCamant and Durrett 1994).
80
There are several other characteristics that are shared by many cohousing
communities. Norwood and Smith (1995) explain that sharing, cooperation, and
intergenerational extended families are important to many cohousers. In addition, the
interaction between, and synthesis of, the social interactions and the physical form of the
community are also important (Norwood and Smith 1995). Meltzer (2005:3) identifies
that many cohousers share "a commitment to living more simply than 'normal' in
smaller, less elaborate dwellings with fewer material possessions." Many seek to reduce
the stress and travel dependence of mainstream life. Some practice voluntary simplicity
(Kirby 2004).
Benefits of Cohousing
There are many benefits reaped by cohousing community members. Living in
community provides the opportunity for greater access to resources and services as a
result of the combination of various community members' interests and skills. The
sharing of resources results in less pressure on individuals and families, less monetary
expenditure, and smaller ecological footprints. The presence of shared facilities and
services allows residents to have access to amenities that single households might not be
able to afford, such as workshops and guest rooms (Franck 1989; McCamant and Durrett
1989). Some community members participate in barter systems and local economies. In
addition, many communities offer the opportunity for income generation through
individual and cooperative efforts, such as growing food and home businesses.
81
Along with resource sharing and the resulting reduced material consumption, the
employment of resource-conserving designs, technologies, and behaviors, such as
composting and recycling, reduce community members' ecological footprints (Norwood
and Smith 1995; Williams 2005). In addition, buying food in bulk and eating from local
or community gardens helps residents further reduce their ecological footprints (Norwood
and Smith 1995). As community members' needs are met on site, their need for resource-
consuming transportation is reduced (Norwood and Smith 1995). Importantly, because of
exposure to greater environmental consciousness and education as a result of living in
community, residents often become more environmentally-aware and demonstrate
behaviors that reflect this (Williams 2005).
There are numerous social advantages of sharing a strong sense of community,
including a sense of belonging and the development of respect for others. However, the
majority of community members must be dedicated to participation, cooperation, group
activities, and the use of the common facilities for these social advantages to develop
(Franck 1989). Franck (1989:6) posits that:
The regular sharing of meals saves individual households the time and effort of
preparing every evening meal on their own (and of the related efforts of grocery
shopping and cleaning up) ... The shared spaces also provide greater opportunity
for sharing child-care responsibilities. Beyond the security and support extended
by the presence of others, there is the social interaction and companionship
generated by joint activities, particularly the sharing of meals and their
preparation, which make for a richer domestic life for adults and for children...
Norwood and Smith (1995) agree that this community support network offers benefits to
the entire community in terms of freeing up personal time, providing emotional support,
82
and offering opportunities for personal growth. Cohousing communities create child-
friendly environments not only because of their pedestrian-friendly nature, but also
because the community serves as a large, extended family and support network. Finally,
most community members are able to balance private and public life, although it can be a
challenge (Franck 1989). It is important to note that these are the espoused benefits of
cohousing. There are also numerous disadvantages, which will be discussed in the results
section of this document.
Cohousing arose as a " ... response to perceived social problems of the late
twentieth century - personal alienation and the breakdown of community, in particular"
(Meltzer 2005:6). In addition, cohousing is a response to " ... the isolation and
impracticalities of single-family houses and apartment units" (McCamant and Durrett
1994:12). Instead of a lonely and detached existence, cohousers strive for a rich
community life in which they have supportive relationships (Meltzer 2005). Projects such
as cohousing, argues Crabtree (2005:342) " ...highlight and reflect the conscious
reinterpretation of home and neighbourhood to more directly address and nurture their
political, social, economic and ecological realities." As such, cohousing is a definitively
mainstream alternative which is applicable to most Americans (Meltzer 2005).
History of Cohousing
Cohousing emerged in Denmark in the 1960s a response to the challenge of
balancing privacy and community and the desire for shared community facilities. The
83
first inklings of cohousing occurred in the mid-1960s when Danish architect Jan
Gudmand-Hoyer gathered with friends in a discussion of the disadvantages of standard
housing and the possibility of other options (Norwood and Smith 1995; McCamant and
Durrett 1989, 1994). Gudmand-Hoyer's (1968) article "The Missing Link Between
Utopia and the Dated One-Family House" garnered much enthusiasm (McCamant and
Durrett 1994). Many people contacted him, expressing interest in building the type of
community he described. At the same time, another author, Bodil Graae (1967),
published an article entitled "Children Should Have One Hundred Parents," also about
the cohousing concept (McCamant and Durrett 1994). Both of these articles inspired
numerous new cohousers in Denmark. In 1968, these two authors and other came
together to build a bofaellesskaber. Bofaellesskaber is translated directly from Danish as
'living community', but known as cohousing in the United States (McCamant and Durrett
1994).
In 1972, the first cohousing community, Saettedammen (outside of Copenhagen,
Denmark) was built by 27 families who sought a sense of community deeper than that
available in standard housing, including Hildur and Ross Jackson, who were pivotal in
the institutionalization of the ecovillage movement (McCamant and Durrett 1994). There
were other communities, as well. By 1973, the Jonstrup community had 33 families
moved in. In 1976, the Nonbo Hede community was completed, and was the third
cohousing community in Denmark. The first rental cohousing development was
Tinggarden, which is touted as a positive example of the "government-subsidized
84
nonprofit housing" that has caught on among nonprofit housing developers in Denmark
(McCamant and Durrett 1994:141). Owner-occupied cohousing was taking off at this
time as well. In fact, Denmark had 12 owner-occupied cohousing communities by 1980.
Nearly all of these were resident-initiated (McCamant and Durrett 1994).
Alison Woodward (1989:72), in "Communal Housing in Sweden", explains that:
By the mid-1970s many criticized the large-scale service house model and
pleaded for smaller projects that might encourage an informal exchange of
services between neighbors. Demands for housing better suited to the creation of
community and the easing of everyday life came from at least two groups -- the
rejuvenated women's movement and the more amorphous alternative living
movement.
Those dissatisfied with standard housing and supporting the development of cohousing
emphasized both the social and the material advantages of this living arrangement.
People recognized that not only could living in community address financial and time
constraints for families (by providing amenities that would otherwise have to be
purchased individually), but also offers an improved quality of life found through sharing
experiences and deepening social relationships. These social and material advantages
became increasingly conceptually intertwined over time (Woodward 1989).
Although most cohousing communities are resident-initiated, the concept has
gained increasing support from the Danish government (McCamant and Durrett 1989).
Denmark's Ministry of Housing, in 1981, passed legislation that facilitated the ease and
affordability of financing cohousing communities. And since that time, the Danish
85
government has provided loans to cohousing communities, most of which are limited-
equity cooperatives. The government has also provided rental subsidies for low-income
residents, which many non-profit housing developers have utilized (McCamant and
Durrett 1994).
From the 1980s onward, cohousing has become increasingly popular. Denmark
had 22 cohousing communities by 1982, 67 by 1988, and 140 by 1993 (McCamant and
Dun-ett 1989 & 1994). These communities, most of which are still in existence, include
between 6 and 40 homes, with the majority between 15 and 33. They house between 40
and 100 people each. By the 1980s, cohousing had become " ... an accepted, mainstream
housing alternative" in Denmark (McCamant and Dunett 1989:96).
At the same time as bofaellesskaber was gaining popularity in Denmark, other
European countries were independently experimenting with similar housing strategies.
For instance, in the Netherlands, the centraal wonen (or central living) include the same
four characteristics as cohousing (participatory process, intentional neighborhood design,
common facilities, and resident management), but rather than having common facilities
in the center of the community, " ... clusters of four to eight households usually share a
living, kitchen, and dining area" (McCamant and Durrett 1994:149). After five years of
planning, the Netherlands's first centraal wonen, Hilversum, was completed in 1977
(McCamant and Dun-ett 1994).
86
Similarly, during the 1960s and 1970s, Sweden saw resurgence in the kollektivhus
of the early 1900s (Woodward 1989). Most of these new projects were publicly-financed,
so that support services could be administered through multi-family communities. They
differed from the early kollektivhus in that each resident had a complete, private dwelling,
rather than having meal preparation and other services performed by building staff
(Franck 1989; Woodward 1989). The goal, as was the case in the development of
cohousing, was improved quality of material and social life (Woodward 1989). By the
1980s, there were many different management and occupancy structures, but " ... the
communal model in Sweden came to mean multigenerational, multifamily housing that
included communal facilities and the potential for common meals" (Woodward 1989:74).
The majority of these shared housing facilities are high-rise buildings with more than 50
private homes (McCamant and Dunett 1994). However, because most multi-family
housing in Sweden is publicly-financed, this type of housing does not cany a negative
stigma (Woodward 1989).
Cohousing was brought to the United States by architects McCamant and Durrett,
who traveled to Denmark and between 1984 and 1985 lived in or visited 46 cohousing
communities (McCamant and Dunett 1989 & 1994). These authors formally introduced
the idea of cohousing to the United States with their 1988 publication of Cohousing: A
Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves (Norwood and Smith 1995). Cohousing
fills a particular niche in the United States because of growing concern with consumerism
among many people (Meltzer 2005). Meltzer (2005: 10) explains that: "Americans living
87
in cohousing have reconceputalized their domestic space needs, enjoying habitable
spaces for their qualities and livability, not their material content and associated status
symbolism." As a result, cohousing has taken off; according to Wonderland Hill
Development Company3, there are now over 80 communities in the United States.
Currently, cohousing is not only seen in Denmark, the United States, the Netherlands,
Sweden, Norway, Germany, France, and Canada, but also in Australia, New Zealand,
Japan, Korea, and certain countries on the African continent (McCamant and Durrett
1994; Meltzer 2005)
Historically, cohousing communities have been initiated by a group of people
with a common vision who come together to plan the community. This planning process
often takes years and communities can fail due to lack of access to knowledge and
resources, as well as divergent interests. Recently, because they recognize that cohousing
serves the needs of an increasingly large number of Americans, development companies
have emerged that are producing 'speculative' (developer-driven) cohousing
communities (McCamant and Durrett 1994). Wonderland Hill Development Company,
for instance, has designed and built 17 cohousing communities.
This type of development challenges the resident participation aspect of the final
design, possibly affecting the future cohesion of the communities (Jackson in Jackson
3 Wonderland Hill Development Company is a for-profit development company based in Boulder,
Colorado, specializing in using the cohousing concept to design and build new residential communities.
88
and Svensson 2002:158; McCamant and Durrett 1994). As McCamant and Durrett
(1994:280) speculate: " ...without active participation in the planning process, residents
are unlikely to make extensive use of the common facilities." Regardless of the problems
of including developers in the design and building of cohousing communities, there are
potential benefits of 'speculative' cohousing (Norwood and Smith 1995). For example,
'speculative' cohousing communities draw people who would not otherwise participate in
a lengthy planning process, thereby broadening cohousing's appeal to the general public.
However, without one of the four defining characteristics of cohousing, perhaps a new
term will be needed to describe these new communities.
Ecovillages
Ecovillages are one type of intentional community. Broadly, ecovillages are
deliberately-created communities whose members strive to modify consumer culture, live
in a socially and environmentally sustainable manner, practice voluntary simplicity,
create a supportive social environment, and cultivate meaning, life satisfaction, and
fulfillment (Bonnette 2004; Kirby 2004; Svensson in Jackson and Svensson 2002).
Ecovillages and cohousing are not mutually exclusive: ecovillages can employ the
cohousing architectural model and process, but not all ecovillages use cohousing and few
cohousing communities are ecovillages.
89
Defining Ecovillages
Robert Gilman developed a clear definition of the ecovillage in 1991 with his
publication of "The Eco-village Challenge". This definition has since been used by
academics and activists alike. He defines the ecovillage as a...
.. .human-scale full-featured settlement in which human activities are harmlessly
integrated into the natural world in a way that is supportive of healthy human
development and can be successfully continued into the indefinite future (Gilman
1991).
This definition is connotatively loaded, and thus deserves some discussion.
By "human-scale", Gilman (1991) refers to the size of the community. He
believes that a community of no more than 500 to 1000 people allows community
residents to know each other and to influence the direction the community is taking
(Gilman 1991). Jan Martin Bang (2005), in Ecovillages: A Practical Guide to Sustainable
Communities, holds that the ideal number of ecovillage residents is between 50 and 500.
By using the term "full featured settlement", Gilman (1991) is describing a
"settlement, in which the major functions of life - food provision, manufacture, leisure,
social life, and commerce - are all present in balanced proportions." This is referring to a
mixed-use community, in which all aspects of life are integrated and present within a
small radius. It is important to note that this is not referring to an isolated or completely
self-sufficient settlement, but one in which there are multiple avenues of employment
with in the community, as well as ecovillagers who are employed outside the community,
90
outsiders who are employed within the community, and services outside the ecovillage
that community members will access (i.e. airports, hospitals)(Bang 2005; Gilman 1991).
In fact, the connection between cohousing communities and their surrounding
communities is an important relationship to cultivate.
The phrase "human activities are harmlessly integrated into the natural world"
refers to more than ecological sustainability. It also refers to an eco-centric (rather than
anthropocentric) worldview, which values other forms of life on a par with humans (Bang
2005; Gilman 1991). In terms of ecological sustainability, this phrase is referring to the
conscious and conservative use of natural resources. Instead of a disposable approach to
natural resources, Gilman (1991) encourages a cyclic approach. To accomplish the
harmless integration of human activities into the natural world, ecovillagers must:
...find ecologically friendly ways to: preserve natural habitats on the village land;
produce food, wood, and other bio-resources on site; process the organic waste
produced on site; render harmless any initially toxic waste from the village;
recycle all solid waste from the village; process liquid waste from the village;
avoid adverse environmental impacts off site from the production and delivery of
any products brought in from off site; avoid adverse environmental impacts off
site from the use and disposal of any products (Gilman 1991).
Current methods employed within ecovillages that work towards this goal include
growing food, the use of renewable energy, composting, recycling and limiting the use of
harmful substances (Gilman 1991).
By "supportive of healthy human development," Gilman (1991) is advocating for
" ... a balanced and integrated development of all aspects of human life - physical,
91
emotional, mental, and spiritual." He is referring to the fulfillment of the needs of both
the individual community members and the community as a whole (Bang 2005; Gilman
1991).
The phrase "can be successfully continued into the indefinite future," means
sustainability in the broad sense (Bang 2005; Gilman 1991). There are three components
of sustainability: ecological, social, and environmental. In order for a community to be
sustainable, all three of these components must be addressed. Gilman (1991) explains that
that this is difficult because there are many hidden ways in which communities can be
"living off the capital accumulated in other parts of the society; or dependent on
unsustainable activities elsewhere; or not inclusive of a major aspect of life (such as
childhood or old age)." This component of ecovillage life requires a commitment to being
fair and non-exploitative in present dealings with other parts of the world, in dealings
with the non-human world, and in dealings with forms of life that will come in the future
(Gilman 1991).
It is important to discuss a common response to the ecovillage concept. Many
recognize that various non-industrialized indigenous communities today do live in
something similar to an ecovillage, and many past traditional agricultural villages
throughout the globe could also be considered something similar to an ecovillage. With
this recognition, it would appear that those involved in the ecovillage movement are
advocating for the adoption of an indigenous village structure or a return to an idyllic
92
past. However, this is most decidedly not the case (Dawson 2006; Gilman 1991;
Norwood and Smith 1995).
Current traditional agricultural villages house a significant proportion the world's
population. However, Gilman (1991) argues that very few people...
...would describe these villages as either full-featured or supportive of healthy
human development. The work is hard, life expectancy is short, opportunities for
personal development and education are few (almost non-existent for women),
and the diversity of livelihoods is small ... In addition, the harmony between these
villages and the natural environment has often depended on low population
densities - a luxury we no longer have... And finally, traditional villages are
hardly paragons of harmony between humans. Village life is often, from a modem
point of view, painfully patriarchal. Beyond the household there is feuding and
mistrust within villages, between neighboring villages, and toward the world
beyond.
Rather, ecovillages " ... are a distinctly post-industriaL .. phenomenon" (Gilman 1991).
This is because ecovillages address post-industrial situations, including environmental
degradation, global population growth, the presence of new technologies (including
scientific, communication, and renewable resource use technologies), new forms of
human organization, and new levels of human understanding and awareness of our place
in the universe (Gilman 1991).
Gilman's (1991) definition of the ecovillage, and the above discussion of his
views, is a useful starting point. However, this definition has been criticized by other
ecovillage scholars and activists, including Jonathan Dawson (2006), in Ecovillages: New
Frontiers for Sustainability, for its imprecision and for its aspirational nature. Dawson
93
(2006:21) argues that Gilman's (1991) definition " ...points to the goal towards which
ecovillages seek to move rather than a state which any has yet achieved."
However, Dawson (2006) tells that formulating a new definition is a formidable
challenge. Jackson and Svensson (2002:5) concur and believe that that this is because
although...
.. .ecovillages build on a common vision, they differ greatly from each other
according to the difference in focus placed on their ecological, social, andlor
cultural spiritual-dimensions. They are also greatly influenced by different
climactic conditions, their natural environment and prevalent local cultures.
Any generalizations risk a homogenization of the diversity of ecovillages that exists.
Regardless, Dawson (2006) does identify five fundamental characteristics that are
common to all ecovillages. These include: "the primacy of community" within
ecovillages, that " ... ecovillages are citizen's initiatives", that ecovillages " ... are in the
business of wresting back control over their own resources", that each ecovillage has a
"strong body ofshared values", and" ... that ecovillages act as centres for research,
demonstration and (in most cases) training" (Dawson 2006:34-36). A brief discussion of
each of these points is in order, as they lead to a new definition of the ecovillage.
The first characteristic, the emphasis of community within ecovillages, Dawson
(2006:34) argues is "a response to the alienation and solitude of the modern condition."
This emphasis on community helps satisfy a desire to connect deeply with others in
community, to be useful and valued, and to use less through sharing resources with other
94
community members. Dawson (2006:34) uses the term "citizen's initiatives", the second
characteristic, to describe the fact that these communities are resident-driven and more
self-sufficient that mainstream society. In many cases, residents not only design, but
build their own homes as well, often using local and recycled materials. The desire to
take back control over resources, the third characteristic, is argued to be an action in
opposition to economic globalization. Dawson (2006:35) believes that ecovillages are
" ... an attempt to win back some measure of community control over the various
dimensions of human life: how we grow our food, build our houses, generate our energy,
create our livelihoods, entertain ourselves and each other." The fourth characteristic, the
shared values Dawson (2006) mentions, refers to spirituality (as distinct from religion) as
well as commitment to a wider cause (environmentalism, community development, or
local economies). Finally, this role that ecovillages accept as educational centers and
models, and the resulting sharing of ideas, technologies, and way of life with a broader
audience, is a key function (Dawson 2006).
From these five characteristics, Dawson (2006:36) proposes a new definition of
ecovillages, defining them as:
Private citizens' initiatives in which the communitarian impulse is of central
importance, that are seeking to win back some measure of control over
community resources, that have a strong shared value base (often referred to as
'spirituality') and that act as centres of research, demonstration and (in most
cases) training.
With this new definition, the purpose of ecovillages beyond the lives of the individual
residents becomes clearer.
95
Characteristics ofEcovillages
According to the Global Ecovillage Network4, there are 375 ecovillages in the
world and 85 in the United States. There are ecovillages in many countries, including Sri
Lanka, Senegal, Tibet, India, Australia, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Mexico, Italy,
Denmark, Scotland, and Wales. Andy Kirby (2004) in "Domestic Protest: The Ecovillage
Movement as a Space of Resistance" explains that by and large, ecovillages in the United
States are a distinctly white, middle-class endeavor.
Hildur Jackson and Karen Svensson (2002), in Ecovillage Living: Restoring the
Earth and Her People, argue that ecovillages are created based on a combination of three
dimensions: ecological, social, and cultural/spiritual. The ecological dimension includes
environmental sustainability, but as mentioned above, sustainability includes social and
economic factors as well. Jackson and Svensson (2002:75) argue that:
The strength of the ecovillage movement is that social-economic sustainability is
just as noticeable and important as the ecological aspect. Most ecovillages are
based on community as a central motivation for their existence. This is one
hundred percent so for the cohousings on which many ecovillages build.
McCamant and Durrett (1994) explain that cohousing communities and ecovillages fit
nicely together, given that they have many goals in common.
4 The Global Ecovillage Network (GEN) is an association of people and communities striving to build
sustainable communities. GEN will be discussed later in this chapter.
96
However, it is important to make a distinction between cohousing and ecovillages
because the two concepts have become increasingly intertwined over time. Dawson
(2006:23) explains the difference:
Ecovillages take the social dimension still further [than cohousing, and] are
altogether more radical in their approach... The community dimension of life in
ecovillages is stronger than in cohousing projects: residents have less private
space, many more members work within the community (often for wages well
below those in the mainstream economy) and a good number have some element
of income-sharing or other ways of redistributing economic wealth among the
members.
The two have become blurred because many ecovillages have adopted cohousing as a
means of streamlining the design and build process. And, many cohousers have expressed
discontent at the lack of deep community orientation or the lack of radical social and
politically radical behavior that exists within cohousing communities.
However, cohousing and ecovillage residents share common goals and strategies
when it comes to community. For instance, many ecovillages and cohousing communities
use consensus decision-making structures. This form of decision-making requires
unanimity (or near unanimity) for any decision to be made. Using consensus usually
results in slower decision outcomes, but" ...the aim is to seek accommodation, to find
ways of arriving at a synthesis of the best in divergent perspectives and to avoid the
alienation of minorities ..." (Dawson 2006:55). Also in both types of communities, people
seek a support network to raise children, more leisure time, less time spent at work and
commuting, and diversity (Jackson and Svensson 2002).
97
In addition, many residents of both ecovillages and cohousing communities react
to the ills of the global economy through the practice of voluntary simplicity, the
deliberate choice to live with less material consumption (discussed in the second chapter
of this document) (Dawson 2006; Kirby 2004). However, residents of ecovillages often
take a stronger approach to disassociating from the global economy. For instance,
members of ecovillages often accept an even lower level of material consumption than
members of cohousing communities. Regardless, ecovillagers are able to maintain
financial salience. This results from the reduced level of monetary expenses that
accompanies a reduction in material consumption. This allows ecovillagers to reduce
their need for income, and gives them more time to pursue new ways to support
themselves that are in greater alignment with their values (Jackson in Jackson and
Svensson 2002). As ecovillagers reach greater levels of self-sufficiency, resulting from
the local production of food and energy as well as resource sharing within the
community, their need for monetary income is further reduced.
In ecovillages, many other ways of disassociating from the global economy can
be found. Many ecovillages share economic resources using some form of redistribution
of wealth (Bang 2005; Dawson 2006). Many use alternative currencies and banking
systems, such as local exchange trading systems (LETS) and community supported
agriculture (CSA) (Bang 2005; Dawson 2006). In addition, many ecovillages have on-site
business ventures that do support the ecovillage financially. Jackson and Svensson
(2002:66-68) identify some of these business activities; they include:
98
Ecovillage design, ecological building, permaculture consultancy, renewable
energy, and water treatment... consultancy in community skills ... home-based
work. .. education... living and learning centers... ecovillage tourism... food
production... healthcare, psychological and physical... health products... arts and
crafts ... media, printing and publishing... shops... [and] mail order businesses.
In fact, diverse combinations of these various alternative economic strategies have
resulted in ecovillage economies that are quite vital (Dawson 2006). Dawson (2006:50)
argues that "it is the unique combination of community and economic strategies that
enables people to bring back into alignment their desire for justice and sustainability with
their aspiration to live well and happily."
Another point on which ecovillages and cohousing communities differ is in the
sweat equity put into the construction of the communities. In cohousing communities,
residents usually participate in the design process, but less often in the construction
process. As mentioned above, in most ecovillages, residents not only design, but build
their own homes as well (Dawson 2006). In both cases, however, participating in the
design process builds community cohesiveness and identity (Bang 2005).
One component of ecovillages is the use of resource-conserving and resource-
generating 'technologies' (the term technology used in the broad sense). Dawson (2006)
points out that there are both low-tech and high-tech technology options employed within
ecovillages. He explains that in either case, these approaches help ecovillagers reduce
their ecological footprints. Regardless the type of technology used, Dawson (2006:43)
holds that the use of these technologies is holistic and integrated...
99
... enabling them to increase internal resource flows and reduce the need for
external inputs ... These benefits are partly a function of intentional design, partly
a function of scale: it is simply easier for resource flows to be integrated and
waste reduced in communities at the ecovillage scale.
The holistic approach to resource conservation and generation is easily visible in the
approaches many ecovillage residents have taken to food, water, and energy (Bang 2005).
Bang (2005) outlines some of the strategies and approaches in each of these three
categories. In terms of food production, many ecovillages use one or several of these
options: permaculture, integrated pest management (IPM), organic farming, biodynamic
farming, hydroponics, rooftop gardens, composting, and closed-loop systems in the
production of food for individuals, households, and market (Bang 2005). In addition to
fruits, nuts, and vegetables, many ecovillages produce arable crops and livestock as well.
In terms of water management, ecovillage have been known to employ: optimum water-
use strategies, rainwater capture, greywater systems, bio-swales, dams, aquaculture,
flowforms, and biological sewage systems (such as living machines5) (Bang 2005). In
terms of energy production, many ecovillages use one or several of the following:
hydropower (usually micro-hydro), wind generators, solar power (photovoltaics and solar
5 Living machines are a form of biological sewage treatment which uses "... a series of tanks through which
the waterborne material flows ... [each of which] contains an ecosystem built up from materials ...
includ[ing] microbes, invertebrates, plankton, fish, flowers, mollusks, and shrubs" (Bang 2005: 167). The
living machine can "...grow food, treat sewage, detoxify harmful human chemicals, regulate climates in
buildings, transform wastes and generate fuels" (Bang 2005:167).
100
hot water), biomass energy6, hay box cooking, geothermal heat, pedal power (machines
constructed from bicycles), hydrogen fuel cells, and heat drawn from animals (homes that
house animals on the ground floor and humans on the floors above) (Bang 2005). In
terms of energy conservation, methods employed include the reduction of overall
transportation requirements; the choice of modes of transportation that require less
energy; the use of energy efficient heating, cooling, lighting, and window systems; the
use of natural cooling systems and passive solar heating systems; and the use of efficient
ventilation (Bang 2005). In addition, during both the construction and maintenance of
ecovillages, many ecovillagers optimize the use of materials, reuse materials, minimize
waste creation, avoid the use of materials that have high embodied energy7, use local and
recycled materials, use natural materials, avoid materials that adversely affect indoor air
quality, avoid materials that deplete the ozone layer, avoid the use of old growth timber
and pressure treated wood, and avoid purchasing items with large amounts of packaging
(Bang 2005).
Challenges Faced by Ecovillages
There are numerous challenges of ecovillage living, from the ways in which
ecovillages interface with wider political dialogues to the dynamics that occur on the
ground in individual communities. On the broadest scale, Dawson (2006) argues that in
6 Biomass energy can be generated using organic materials produced on-site, using coppicing for timber
production, vegetable oil produced on-site, or alcohol produced from any type of sugar or methane from
sewage and manure, for instance.
7 The energy required to bring materials from extraction to installation is referred to as that material's
embodied energy.
101
the face of the increasing concentrations of wealth and power that exist in the current
global economic system, the ecovillage movement is removed from the mainstream
political discourse. This hinders the ability of the ecovillage movement to articulate its
message in this theater. In addition, the movement is hindered by its lack of templates
that could be widely disseminated to those interested in ecovillage living, who could
follow those guidelines to build a new community (Dawson 2006).
At the ecovillage-Ievel, there are numerous challenges identified by Gilman
(1991). To begin, the requirements of environmental sustainability to the ecovillage
provides a formidable obstacle. One could argue that it is nearly impossible to ensure that
all of the ways in which ecovillages are built and maintained, as well as the behaviors of
ecovillage residents, are environmentally benign (Gilman 1991). In addition, the social
and economic components of sustainability implicitly include equity. Again, it may be
nearly impossible to ensure that all of the ways in which ecovillages are built and
maintained, as well as the behaviors of ecovillage residents, do not exploit other people
or places, currently or in the future (Gilman 1991). Ecovillage governance structures
must also ensure the absence of exploitation, and the presence of community interaction
and a variety of activities (Gilman 1991).
There are challenges on the individual level. Andy Kirby (2003), in "Redefining
social and environmental relations at the ecovillage at Ithaca" identifies that residents
face situational, interpersonal, and personal challenges. The situational challenges include
102
issues of ecovillage location and economics. Ecovillage homes in the United States,
which often include high-tech technologies for resource conservation and production, can
be quite expensive (Kirby 2004). In addition, ecovillage settlements are all privately
funded, further reducing their affordability (Dawson 2006). As a result, there is a tension
for many American ecovillagers between voluntary simplicity and the affordability of
ecovillage life. On the interpersonal scale, Kirby (2003) identifies boundary,
communication, and consensus issues. He argues that boundary issues, such as where an
ecovillage resident or household wants to sit within the community's continuum of public
to private, can be a significant challenge. Regardless of these challenges, the ecovillage
movement has grown significantly since its institutional beginnings in the early 1990s.
History of the Ecovillage Movement
As Albert Bates (2003a) explains in "A 73-Year-Old Ecovillage in the Land of
Ice and Fire," the first ecovillage was created in Iceland in the late 1920s (S6Iheimer).
And, as Bates (2003b) elaborates in "Ecovillage Roots (and Branches)," as early as the
1970s a few ecovillages were independently coming into being. These included Mother
Earth News' educational center (Henderson, North Carolina) and okodoif(Gorleben,
Germany), which was formed in support of an anti-nuclear protest. Ecovillages continued
to form independently since that time, but were not networked or organized under one
organization or association.
103
In the 1970s in Denmark, several cohousers were looking to other forms of
intentional community that could go beyond the social benefits offered by cohousing
(Bates 2003b; Jackson in Jackson and Svensson 2002). These cohousers included Danish
social activist Hildur Jackson, and her Canadian entrepreneur husband Ross Jackson, who
were both involved in the emergence of the cohousing movement in the 1970s (Dawson
2006). They were two of the founders of Saettedammen, the first cohousing community
in Denmark, established in 1972 (Jackson and Svensson 2002). After living there for 20
years, the Jacksons wanted:
... to be part of a more comprehensive experiment, which, if all people lived that
way, would create a sustainable Earth. This was not possible within the
boundaries of our existing cohousing (Jackson in Jackson and Svensson
2002:158).
They had created the Gaia Trust a few years prior, in which they had earmarked funds to
be used in forwarding ecological and radical low-impact settlements, many of which
were inspired by the intentional communities movement (Bang 2005; Dawson 2006).
At the same time, in the Untied States, Diane and Robert Gilman, who were co-
owners and editors of In Context magazine, were using their publication to investigate
sustainable communities and highlight the finest of them (Dawson 2006). In 1990, the
Gaia Trust, under the administration of Hildur and Ross Jackson, solicited the Gilmans to
do a study of sustainable communities and their best practices (Bang 2005; Dawson
2006). The report, entitled "Ecovillages and Sustainable Communities" was published in
1991 and showcased the best practices among international examples. Furthermore, the
104
Gilmans recommended ways in which the Gaia Trust could have the greatest influence in
catalyzing the ecovillage movement (Dawson 2006). The same year, the Jacksons held a
meeting in Denmark engaging a network of people interested in ecovillages, which was
followed by several years of networking and discussion.
Then, in 1995 the Gaia Trust funded the "Ecovillages and Sustainable
Communities: Models for the 21st Century" conference held at the Findhorn Foundation
in Scotland. The following year, at the United Nations' UN-HABITAT Conference in
Istanbul, Turkey, they formally launched the Global Ecovillage Network (GEN) (Dawson
2006; Jackson in Jackson and Svensson 2002). With the goal of working globally to
promote the development of sustainable settlements and articulating a positive vision for
social change, GEN marked the beginning of the institutionalized ecovillage movement
(Dawson 2006).
The Ecovillage as a Model
Kirby (2004) argues that "the ecovillage movement offers a critique of the current
social mode, proposing that environmental degradation follows from social degradation."
In addition to a critique, the ecovillage movement offers a positive vision for social
change in the form of a solution to environmental degradation and social alienation
(Kirby 2004). Kirby (2004) argues that the concurrent deepening social relationships
within the community and deepening relationship community members develop with the
environment is precisely this solution.
105
Dawson (2006) explains that most of the attention that ecovillages gamer is
directed towards the technological features they incorporate, features that are often
subsequently adopted by the wider society. But, Dawson (2006:54) also believes that
"ecovillagers themselves lay at least as much emphasis on the social dimension: the
challenge of finding satisfactory and inclusive forms of community governance and
wellbeing." He holds that the particular characteristics of ecovillages allow them to
innovate more rapidly and more courageously, which gives them more power as agents of
change. However, he believes that the community facet of the ecovillage is equally
important. It is precisely this combination of foci that makes the ecovillage a powerful
model.
As mentioned above, many ecovillages accept this role as a model. Dawson
(2006) argues that the sharing of ideas, technologies, and way of life with a broader
audience is a key function of ecovillages. He believes that:
What makes ecovillages especially effective as catalysts for change is that the
primary objective of activities... is less to do with making life comfortable for
ecovillage residents than demonstrating the viability of new, more ecologically
benign approaches that they then promote and disseminate (Dawson 2006:43).
Svensson (in Jackson and Svensson 2002: 10) holds that the ecovillage model is
" ...widely applicable model for the planning and reorganization of human settlements in
the 21st Century." Although ecovillages aspire to a perhaps unattainable ideal, they have
been identified as an alternative everyday space that represents another option to
106
consumer society by academics, such as Kirby (2004) and Jenny Pickerill and Paul
Chatterton (2006) in "Notes towards autonomous geographies." Many tout them to be
strong models of activism (Bonnette 2004). It is this point to which I will tum in the last
two chapters of this document.
107
CHAPTER V
METHODS: A CASE STUDY OF ECOVILLAGE AT ITHACA
In coming to recognize that our production is actually consumption offinite
natural resources (Rees 19971), and that this activity produces waste products
that threaten the stability ofthe biosphere on which we depend, the notion of
sustainability becomes ofparamount importance... Whereas some individuals
have reactedfrom a personal sense ofdissatisfaction with the status quo as
represented by contemporary consumer society, others have been moved by the
implications on social and environmental levels to seek change. In this way, the
intersection ofpersonal concerns for establishing viable community and living
environmentally, and more global concerns for the future ofour society and the
global environment, find expression in the creation ofan environmentally
oriented community like EVI [EcoVillage at Ithaca]. (Kirby 2003:325)
During July of2007, I visited EcoVillage at Ithaca (also known simply as
EcoVillage), in upstate New York, to gain a greater understanding of the community, its
residents, and its relationship to the rest of the world. I used qualitative methods,
including participant observation and semi-structured interviews, to explore the role
EcoVillage, as a community, plays in resisting the ills of global capitalism. I also
investigated the residents' perceptions of their own, personal role in resisting the ills of
global capitalism as activists.
1 Rees, W. E. 1997. "Ecological footprints and the imperative of rural sustainability." Pp. 41-78 in Rural
Sustainable Development in America, edited by I. Audirac. New York, NY: Wiley.
108
Qualitative Methods
I chose qualitative methods because this research style allowed me, as the
researcher, to be visible in the research process. This research style also provided me with
permission to openly incorporate my own values into my research agenda, including what
questions I pursue and the use to which I put my findings. Finally, qualitative methods
are best-suited to exploring the interactions between individual people and the larger
structures that influence their lives.
Elspeth Graham's (2005) chapter in Flowerdew and Martin's Methods in Human
Geography: a guide for students doing research projects explains the historical and
current status of "Philosophies Underlying Human Geography Research." Graham (2005)
argues that " ...geographical research is based on philosophical assumptions or choices"
(p.6) and that " ... even the most philosophically inarticulate researcher makes
philosophical choices simply by doing research" (p.8). These philosophical choices are
many, and include the epistemological position a researcher takes regarding the nature of
truth, and the existence of objectivity. In choosing qualitative methods, I have taken the
position that truth is not objective, but only partially knowable. Knowledge is situated,
and I must recognize that I am, as a researcher, also embedded in the social and cultural
web that I am researching.
Researchers make other philosophical choices, such as decisions regarding the
degree to which her/his activist agendas, or at least her/his values, are incorporated into
109
the research questions posed, and the audience to which research is presented. Graham
(2005:29) explains that to some "the point of research... is not simply to add to
knowledge but to change the world for the better." From this, I have gained an
understanding that it is entirely appropriate, even necessary, to incorporate my values into
my research questions and methods. In my quest to understand people's experiences of
the ways in which they have resisted specific structures, processes, and dynamics, and the
impact of that resistance, I can, without reservation, adopt a goal of putting that
knowledge towards making the world a better place. Taking this idea further, Janice
Morse (1994:58), in "Designing Funded Qualitative Research," identifies " ... 'reform
focused' or 'problem-focused' ideas, in which the underlying purpose of the project is
political, with predetermined goals..." Morse's identification of this possibility
legitimates my own incorporation ofpolitics into the research questions I am choosing to
ask and the ways in which I am choosing to answer them.
Winchester (2005:5) states that one of the two questions that can be answered
with qualitative methods is: "what is the shape of societal structures and by what
processes are they constructed, maintained, legitimized, and resisted?" Qualitative
methods aided my search to understand the degree to which EcoVillage at'lthaca can be
understood as a space of resistance and EcoVillage residents can be understood as
activists. Participant observation and semi-structured interviews helped me to gain
general insights about daily life in the community, as well as an understanding of the
thoughts of individual residents.
110
Participant observation allowed me to gain a better understanding of planning and
decision-making, the rhythm ofdaily life, community activities and celebrations, and the
relationship EcoVillage residents have with the town of Ithaca. According to Robin A.
Keams (2005:193) in "Knowing Seeing? Undertaking Observation Research," another
chapter in Hay's book, participant observation fosters:
...contextual understanding. Here the goal is to construct an in-depth
interpretation of a particular time and place through direct experience.
As a result ofmy immersion in the daily life and activities ofEcoVillage residents, I
gained a greater understanding not only of EcoVillage at Ithaca, and also of its residents.
Semi-structured interviews blend the advantages and disadvantages of
unstructured and structured interviews. Kevin Dunn (2005:89) tells us in "Interviewing,"
a chapter oflain Hay's Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography, that semi-
structured interviews are "content focused" and allow for "flexible questioning." With
semi-structured interviews, I was able to ask the same questions of all interviewees,
which I could then systematically compare. And, I was free to pursue interesting themes
as they arose. Semi-structured interviews provided me with a window onto individual
residents' thoughts, opinions, motivations, challenges, and aspirations.
111
Eco Village at Ithaca
EcoVillage at Ithaca is located on the West Hill of Ithaca, in the Finger Lakes
region of New York, as seen in Figure 1. As Liz Walker (2005), co-founder of
EcoVillage and Director of the nonprofits, explains in EcoVillage at Ithaca: Pioneering a
Sustainable Culture, the village covers 175 acres2, but only 10% ofthat land has been
developed. There are two distinct neighborhoods, the First Neighborhood Group (FROG)
and the Second Neighborhood Group (SONG). Each neighborhood has 30 duplex homes,
but covers only 3 to 4 acres. The two neighborhoods have different histories, design and
build processes, and personalities. However, they are both based on the cohousing model
and they both incorporate green building techniques and technologies. Together, the two
neighborhoods house about 170 people.
2 EcoVillage land originally covered 176 acres, but one acre was eliminated from the holding, leaving 175
remaining acres.
112
7',
o.....' 25i:::::::'''iiio°__5~~es
Figure 1. EcoVillage at Ithaca is located on the West Hill of Ithaca, in the Finger Lakes
region of New York State. Cartographic design by Justyna Goworowska and Diana
Fischetti.
The remaining 90% ofEcoVillage's land has been conserved as open space in the
form of wooded lands, meadows, wetlands, and agricultural lands. Fifty five acres are
held in a conservation easement by the Finger Lakes Land Trust. These 55 acres include
the privately-owned organic community supported agriculture (CSA) West Haven Farm.
In addition, EcoVillage has a you-pick berry farm, which is also a CSA and a private
business.
113
The EcoVillage at Ithaca Mission Statement, entitled "Towards Systemic
Change" and adopted in 1994, states that...
The ultimate goal ofEcoVillage at Ithaca is nothing less than to redesign the
human habitat. We are creating a model community of some five hundred
residents that will exemplify sustainable systems of living - systems that,are not
only practical in themselves, but replicable by others. The completed project will
demonstrate the feasibility of a design that meets basic human needs such as
shelter, food production, energy, social interaction, work and recreation while
preserving natural ecosystems (Walker 2005:7)
The goal of EcoVillage, as understood by residents, is to create a model of sustainable
living that is appealing to mainstream America, while at the same time reducing the
ecological footprint of residents and increasing meaningful relationships within the
community.
This mainstream orientation is critical to make explicit, as it has both positive and
negative ramifications that will be discussed throughout this document. As Dawson
(2006:30) states: "central to the concerns of the designers ofEcovillage at Ithaca from the
outset was ease of replication by middle-class Americans..." Jackson and Svennson
(2002:174) agree that EcoVillage " ... is one of the most mainstream initiatives... in the
USA." This mainstream orientation has made EcoVillage a very high-profile and visible
demonstration project (Dawson 2006).
114
History
As Walker (2005) explains, the original vision for EcoVillage at Ithaca was
conceived by Joan Bokaer in 1990. Bokaer quickly recruited Liz Walker, whom she met
at the Global Walk for a Livable World that same year. In 1991, Bokaer spoke in Ithaca,
New York about her dream. As Bokaer (1991) envisioned in "The Ecological
Imperative:"
A pedestrian village would not only address most of the major ecological
problems of our times, but could also improve the quality of our lives. A highly
interactive social life of diverse people would flourish in a setting of clustered
housing with some shared resources, a mixed-use human-scale village center and
lots of open land. It would address many of the problems faced by modem
families such as chronic time crunch, isolation, and lack of care for young
children and the elderly. In addition, energy-efficient housing, the sharing of
many resources, the lack ofneeded to own a car, and the production of food on-
site can push the cost of living way down.
Also in 1991, Bokaer, Walker, and others held an Envisioning Retreat, which catalyzed
the formation of the EVI nonprofit organization, sponsored by the Center for Religion,
Ethics, and Social Policy (CRESP), a nonprofit organization affiliated with Cornell
University. CRESP's mission is to "foster vital and caring communities to provide a
foundation for a world of peace, mutual understanding, and respect for all life" (Walker
2005: 167). CRESP is also dedicated to helping new nonprofits get offthe ground.
This same year, the West Hill property was identified and those involved decided
to purchase it for $400,000. With relief, Walker (2005: 129) tells that:
The 175-acre West Hill property that is now our home could have looked entirely
different. In 1991, Lakeside Development Corporation owned the land and
planned to build 150 homes on I-acre (OA-hectare) lots. Ninety percent ofthe
115
land would have been taken over by roads, houses, and manicured lawns. The
remaining 10 percent would have been left as open space to satisfy a requirement
of the Town ofIthaca. The areas left would have been the ones to wet or steep to
build on. Developments like the ones proposed by Lakeside are gobbling up land
all over the US. There is little room left for wildlife, agriculture, or simple open
space. People are completely dependent on cars to get to work, take their children
to school, or find recreation. And it can be very lonely living in a bedroom
community. Yet this is the 'American Dream,' the model of development we are
exporting to communities around the world.
EcoVillage at Ithaca was envisioned and designed specifically to model an alternative to
this version of the'American Dream.'
Using donated money (which was also used for closing costs and attorney's fees)
the visionaries put $20,000 towards the purchase price. Because of the non-traditional
nature of the proposed development, non-traditional lending mechanisms were required.
Walker and Bokaer solicited and gained loans from 10 separate lenders amounting to
$380,000. These loans were structured into two separate mortgages, one for $120,000
(gained from one individual lender) and the other for $260,000 (gained from a mortgage
pool containing all the other lenders). In June of 1992, they purchased the property. This
same year, EVI gained its nonprofit status. The plan was to pay $30,000 per year towards
the mortgages, beginning after the completion of the first neighborhood. The idea was
that the development of successive neighborhoods would create the revenue needed to
cover the cost of these payments.
Shortly after the land was purchased, the planning process began. As Walker
(2005:21) explains:
116
Once we had purchased the land, the next step was to figure out what to do with
it. We had to decide where to build the village, where to situate the farm, and
what acreage to leave untouched. We also had to pay off that whopping mortgage.
We entered an intensive and participatory land use planning process that involved
many people, hours of research, and multiple meetings. Everyone felt the need to
connect deeply with this place.
This land use planning process included the formation of a Land Use Planning Council
that presented its findings to the Land Use Planning Forum. The Council investigated
"...agriculture, natural areas and recreation, neighborhood siting, transportation, village
siting, and water/waste management" (Walker 2005:24). This planning process also
included the creation of "Guidelines for Development" and an "Envisioning Plan."
During this time, McCamant and Durrett held a workshop with the new EcoVillagers, to
aid in the cohousing design of the village.
The planning of the first neighborhood group (FROG) lasted until the final site
plan was approved by the Town ofIthaca and groundbreaking in 1995. The group had
hired development managers, who were architect-builders sympathetic to their goals, to
aid in the design process and implement the build process. The houses were designed by
the residents, who during the design process divided into four groups based on the square
footage each thought they would need. Each group designed their floor plan collectively.
As Walker (2005:138) explains, in the case of FROG: " ...although [the residents were]
heavily involved in the decision making on design, [the neighborhood] had a very
controlled design and construction process with managers who were clearly in charge."
FROG's 30 duplex homes were completed in 1997, as shown in Figure 2.
117
Figure 2. View of FROG. The Common House is on the left and the neighborhood
stretches to the right. The back windows of these homes over look the pond. Photo
courtesy of James Bosjolie.3
Time and cost overruns during the construction of FROG, including a fire that
destroyed eight homes and the Common House, amounted to approximately $20,000 per
home. As a result, EcoVillage could not afford to make the mortgage payments to its
J The photos contained in this document that depict people were provided by James Bosjolie, who is an
informal media coordinator for EcoVillage. He has already gained permission from those whose images are
in the photos to use them for magazine articles, EcoVillage's website, other outreach materials, and in any
other way he sees fit to promote EcoVillage's mission. J-lence, these photos represent no violation of
Human Subjects Protocol.
118
lenders. So, under the guidance ofWalker, the Second Neighborhood Group (SONG)
was initiated. SONG could raise money by purchasing some of the land. This money
could be used to pay offthe mortgages. The planning of SONG began in 1996.
There were other measures taken to help remedy the mortgage situation. For
instance, EVI (the nonprofit) donated 35 acres to FROG. And, two residents who were
also lenders in the mortgage pool forgave their $130,000 loan, with the stipulation that 55
acres ofEcoVillage be place in a permanent conservation easement. Because of the cost
and time overruns, no payments had been made towards the mortgages in five years. As a
result, one of the lenders foreclosed on his $120,000 loan (separate from the mortgage
pool), but agreed to give Walker one year before foreclosure and agreed to waive all
interest. Thus the 'Save Our Unlimited Land' (SOUL) Partnership was formed, which
gained loans of$108,000 each from five future residents, and the remaining $12,000
from a non-resident. Later, one of these residents threatened to foreclose, which made
salient the need for a long-term solution to the land debt.
In 1998, the village formed the.'ISLAND Agreement' (i.e. Infrastructure and
Land), to delineate how FROG, SONG, and EVI (the nonprofit) would share these
community elements. In 1999, three years after the planning of SONG began, the
majority families involved dissolved due to the loss oflow-income housing funding for
the project. So, in 2000, EVI gained a $100,000 low-interest loan from Equity Trust, a
119
community land trust (eLT) to plan the infrastructure of SONG. And shortly thereafter,
new families joined.
As Walker (2005: 139) tells:
SONG's design and build process took a much looser approach that allowed for
more creativity and owner-builder participation than did FROG's. But it also
traveled a bumpier road.
For SONG's design and build process, a construction manager was hired, who with
"...the SONG residents teamed up in a highly participatory process that included the
construction, financing, and subcontracting for the whole project, as well as the
management of the subsidized housing" (Walker 2005:140). The development of SONG
took place over two phases, with Town approval received and construction beginning in
2001. Figure 3 shows the 175 acres of EcoVillage land during the construction of SONG.
120
Figure 3. An aerial photo of EcoVillage at Ithaca (with topography and soils
superimposed) during the construction of SONG. Image courtesy of James Bosjolie.
The design of the individual SONG homes did not involve the same participatory
process employed in FROG. Rather, individual residents designed their own homes,
incorporating any green building techniques or technologies they desired. The
development of SONG involved much more resident sweat equity than the development
of the FROG homes. In fact, the SONG Common House was built entirely by residents.
121
Although the "...SONG homes have unmistakable personality, reflecting the
individualized taste, choices, and often labor of their owners," Walker (2005: 140) argues
that:
Without a clear group consensus on standard home size or features, it was also
easy for SONG residents to get seduced by 'house envy' or 'feature creep' -
adding a bow window here, a meditation loft there - without realizing how the
costs would add up.
However, an $112,000 grant from the Federal Home Loan Bank grant was used to
subsidize six of the homes in SONG to make them more affordable. The first 14 SONG
homes were completed in 2002, and the next 16 (begun in 2002) were completed in 2003.
The completed neighborhood can be seen in Figure 4.
122
Figure 4. SONG as viewed from the CRUX (a.k.a. the bridge joining the two
neighborhoods, at the center of EcoVillage). Photo by author.
However, at this time, the mortgage problem was still looming. As a result,
Walker proposed the "Debt-Free in 2003" campaign, asking residents to contribute
money to the nonprofit to payoff the land. Residents participated and they raised the
money they thought they owed. However, accounting errors and cost overruns in the
construction of SONG amounted in another $23,000 in debt.
123
To raise this additional money, some proposed subdividing and selling another lot
on West Haven Road (the built-on residential street). However, others believed that "by
subdividing and selling, we would be engaging in the very land use practices we were
trying so hard to avoid" (Walker 2005:37). To evade this issue completely, one resident
granted a $23,000; four-year, interest-free loan to be paid by each ofthe 60 community
households. This was paid back in four years by each household contributing $8 a month.
In 2003, the mortgages were paid off, less than 12 years after the purchase ofthe land.
It is important to take a moment to explain the organizational structure of
EcoVillage. There are actually two nonprofit organizations, EVI Inc. and EVI CRESP,
which own the land and make the financial decisions for EcoVillage. They use a typical
Board of Directors voting decision-making structure (and share the same Director and
Board). Each neighborhood is a cooperative corporation that uses consensus decision-
making. There is also the Village Association (or VA), which owns the road and the
infrastructure. The VA represents the people in decisions that involve everybody and also
uses consensus, with a 70% fallback for deadlocks. In addition, there are committees for
nearly every topic area.
Currently, EcoVillage has 60 homes in two neighborhoods, and houses
approximately 170 people. Although an early site plan, Figure 5 shows the layout ofthe
undeveloped land, two neighborhoods, farms, pond, roads, and paths. Residents span a
variety of household structures, including singles, families of all ages, and retired folks
124
(Kirby 2003). Residents also have a variety of occupations, from clerical to social work
to software design to academia (Kirby 2003).
lEe V~e @·Ithae
3D \llew of
F-tog Cornmllntly
••,
I •
7
~
@
--- ---
'I
, J
.J
)
,
,
Figure 5. An early site plan of EcoVillage at Ithaca. Although some elements are not yet
in place on the ground, such as the Education Center and the third neighborhood, this
illustration accurately notes the location of the undeveloped land, two neighborhoods,
farms, pond, roads, and paths. Image coultesy of James Bosjolie.
125
Design Characteristics
As mentioned above, Bokaer's original vision for EcoVillage was inspired by
McCamant and Durrett's (1988) Cohousing book. The Board ofEVI decided early on (in
1992) that EcoVillage was aspiring to influence middle-class Americans with its
neighborhood design (Walker 2005). As Walker (2005:56) explains:
We hoped to lead by example and model a new direction in housing. Our densely
clustered, community-oriented homes would be constructed to be super-insulated
and passive solar, and we intended to set them in neighborhoods surrounded by
plenty of open land.
The eventual goal for EcoVillage is to have up to five cohousing neighborhoods on the
site, densely clustered homes, a village center, an education center, and farming (Kirby
2004; Walker 2005). Kirby (2004) explains that with five neighborhoods on 175 acres,
the population density of a typical suburban neighborhood could be achieved, but would
be concentrated on a much smaller proportion of the land, thus allowing open space to be
preserved and put to agricultural use. The ecological and social sustainability goals of
EcoVillage are a moving target, but one that residents hope to pursue in manifesting the
entire vision (Walker 2005).
Kirby (2004) reports that with the measures already in place, residents of
EcoVillage may consume as little as one third the resources of a comparable typical
household. These measures include green building, which is not only a design style, but
126
" ... a whole philosophy of design that incorporates ecologically friendly buildings with
careful land use and design" (Walker 2005:135). However, these measures also include
the encouragement of a sense of community that results in deepened social relationships
and resource sharing. Because the design characteristics of EcoVillage address both
social and environmental sustainability, a brief discussion of each is in order.
EcoVillage at Ithaca is formally described as a cohousing ecovillage (Dawson
2006). The cohousing design directly addresses the social sustainability goals of
EcoVillage. As seen in Figure 6, the cohousing design characteristics discussed earlier in
this document are all present, including clustered homes facing shared pedestrian
pathways, the restriction of cars inside the neighborhoods, and common facilities.
127
Figure 6. FROG pedestrian street lined with houses, with a view of the Common House.
Photo courtesy of James Bosjolie.
Each neighborhood has a community garden, a playground, and a common house.
The SONG playground and common house can be seen in Figures 7 and 9. The FROG
128
common house is depicted in Figure 10. The common houses have shared laundry
facilities, office space, Children's and Teen's rooms, guest rooms, multi-purpose rooms,
and shared industrial kitchens for common meals. The entire village shares a pond that is
fed by nmoff from the EcoVillage itself. The pond is used for recreation, including
swimming and socializing, as well as for fire suppression (Kirby 2003). In addition, the
entire village shares a sauna, fueled by propane, depicted in Figure 8.
Figure 7. Playground in SONG common
area. Photo by author.
Figure 8. Sauna shared by all residents.
Photo courtesy of James Bosjolie.
129
Figure 9. SONG Common House, as seen from the center of the neighborhood. Photo by
author.
130
Figure 10. FROG Common House, as seen from across the pond. Photo by author.
The common house provides the venues for common meals. Common meals are
neighborhood-specific, but the entire village is invited. FROG has common meals 3 times
per week, and SONG has them 2 or 3 times per week. Participation in the common meals
is optional, as is participation in other community events (such as meetings, work parties,
131
etc.) (Kirby 2003). Residents sign up for cooking and cleaning duties. Those who plan to
eat a common meal also sign up in advance, so that the cooks know the volume of food to
prepare (Kirby 2003). In Figure 11, EcoVillage residents enjoy a common meal in the
FROG common house.
( ". )
Figure 11. FROG residents sharing a common meal. Photo courtesy ofJames Bosjolie.
As Kirby (2003:326) argues:
The decision to draw the houses together and cluster the community in the midst
of an open and wild landscape creates a living metaphor for the ecovillage
132
philosophy. The compactness of the dwelling space amid the immense openness
of the natural environment serves to tum the attention back toward the village
itself. The houses look inward to the central ribbon that connects them, a safe,
pedestrian space that encourages chance encounters. In such a setting, establishing
and maintaining connection with others becomes easier.
However, this propensity for chance encounters necessitates a deliberately designed
balance between public and private space. As in most cohousing communities,
EcoVillage homes have a more public fa9ade, including a kitchen, facing the shared
pathway, and a more private backside, including bedrooms, facing away from the
pathway. Dawson (2006:82) explains that EcoVillage " ...developed a significantly
stronger communitarian ethic than most conventional cohousing initiatives ..." evidenced
by such things as the dedication many residents have towards each other, the village, and
its educational mission; the workshops held by and for residents; and the fact that many
residents are either employed on-site or work from home.
The green building technologies and techniques employed at EcoVillage directly
address the environmental sustainability goals. Residents' ecological footprints are
reduced through a number of measures. The clustering of homes and the smaller square
footage of individual homes (facilitated by shared common space) reduce not only direct
impacts on the surrounding landscape, but also resources used on operating and
maintaining households. Duplexes reduce building surface area and thus save on heating
and cooling energy resources and costs. Although not all homes have small square
footage, all the homes at EcoVillage are duplexes.
133
Passive solar homes, such as that depicted in Figure 12, further reduce heating
and cooling energy requirements. These homes have the majority of windows (which are
double- or triple-glazed) on the south side of the home, mass walls or floors4, and
awnings. Passive solar homes are designed to maximize natural heating in the winter by
accessing and retaining the sun's heat, and maximize natural cooling in the summer by
deflecting the sun's heat. All FROG homes, and most SONG homes are passive solar.
Figure 12. Interior of a passive solar FROG home. Photo by author.
4 Mass walls or floors are made of materials designed to absorb heat or cool and then radiate over a
sustained period of time. In the case of passive solar in the winter, for example, mass walls or floors absorb
the winter sun, heat up, and radiate heat throughout the night or longer.
134
Walker (2005: 136) explains that "at FROG, we use approximately 40 percent less
gas and electricity than other typical homes in the north-eastern US." FROG has five
basic floor plans, designed by the residents. These floor plans vary from a 900-square-
foot one-bedroom to a 1,650-square-foot five-bedroom. All the homes are stick-frame
construction, with double walls, which are insulated by cellulose, made from recycled
newspaper and blown in. Further
Almost all the homes have a large, triple-glazed window wall on the south side
and a cathedral ceiling, making the space feel light and open.·And there are
mezzanines, open to the living room below, that can be used as office space.
Homes in FROG are very standardized, with few custom features (Walker
2005:139).
This lack of custom features has benefits and disadvantages. Walker explains (2005:139):
The result [of a uniform design] was less individual creativity, fewer cost
overruns... and a more standardized product. Our homes are smaller and, on
average, less expensive than their SONG counterparts. And they have fewer
'green' features, such as pholovoltaics (solar electric panels) or composting
toilets. Unlike our SONG neighbors, FROG residents had neither the satisfaction
not the headaches of 'building your own.'
In addition, the standardized design allowed for shared heating systems, further
maximizing the efficient use of resources. Every four homes in FROG share one boiler to
heat the house and water. Finally, no FROG home has a full-size oven. Residents use the
common house oven for baking.
------------- --
- -----------------------------------
135
Walker (2005) explains that in SONG, 'Eco-BloceM ', a polystyrene building
block that is highly insulative, has been used for some foundations and, in those cases,
were assembled and installed by community members. Further, all homes have earth
berm basement insulation. Many SONG homes used structurally insulated panels (SIPs)
for insulation5• Some houses are timber framed, many of which were framed by
community members. Some houses are strawbale construction, such as the duplex in
Figure 13. Some use heat recovery ventilators (HRVs). One fourth ofEcoVillage homes,
all of which are in SONG, generate their own electricity using solar photovoltaic (PV)
panels. Some SONG homes have solar hot water heaters, as well. PV panels and solar hot
waters are evident in the SONG homes imaged in Figure 14. As stated above, all the
homes are custom, and thus all are different. Some homes have composting toilets, which
help conserve water and treat wastes on site. The SONG common house, built entirely by
residents, is made of local and regional materials as well as Forest Certified Lumber. The
common house is LEED certified, which is the US Green Building Council's Leadership
in Energy and Environmental Design Green Building Rating SystemTM.
5 SIPs are panels used for building that are made of a rigid foam core sandwiched between two layers of
(usually) strand board. The panels are easy to install, reduce the requirement for timber in home
construction, and have high insulative capacity.
136
Figure 13. Strawbale duplex homes in
SONG. Photo by author.
Figure 14. Passive solar, solar hot
water, and solar photovoltaics (PVs) in
SONG. Photo by author.
Throughout EcoVillage, those involved in the design and build process were
attentive to several things, such as the use of ecologically-friendly materials and
resource-conserving appliances. Paints, varnishes, and other chemicals that do not off-gas
were chosen in an attempt to preserve indoor air quality. High-efficiency appliances and
low-flow bathroom fixtures were installed. The plumbing was installed, in many cases, so
that it could easily be retrofitted to accommodate solar hot water or greywater recovery.
In addition, the embodied energy of many resources and materials was considered, and
dealt with through the selection of local materials, the reuse of materials, the use of
recycled materials, and recycling (Walker 2005).
Dawson (2006) argues that EcoVillagers' footprints are further reduced through
their transportation choices. Many residents carpool, car share, use public transportation,
137
or ride their bikes. Some vehicles IUn on alternative energy sources. Many residents also
share errands. In addition, Dawson (2006) estimates that 60% of working adult residents
works at least part time on-site. This further reduces the need for transportation.
Finally, the presence of the organic CSA West Haven FaIID, the berry farm
(shown in Figure 15), and the community gardens (shown in Figure 16) further decrease
the need for transportation, of both the organic products themselves and the EcoVillage
residents who would otherwise travel to town to purchase agricultural products. The 10-
acre West Haven Farm had, in 2002, over 150 CSA subscribers (Jackson and Svennson
2002). With CSA and local farmers' market customers, West Haven Farm continues to
feed approximately 1,000 people a week during the growing season (Dawson 2006;
Jackson and Svennson 2002).
Figure 15. The berry fann in early life.
Photo courtesy of James Bosjolie.
Figure 16. SONG community garden.
Photo by author
138
Outreach and Education
Outreach and education are a fundamental part ofEcoVillage at Ithaca's mission.
As Dawson (2006:32) sums up, "consistent with its core educational objective, EVI
places a strong emphasis on communicating its experience to the wider world." Through
its openness to academic inquiry, its partnerships with the local colleges and university,
its on- and off-site classes and workshops, its initiatives in local politics, its involvement
with the Global Ecovillage Network (GEN), and its widespread media attention,
EcoVillage aims to catalyze change beyond the boundaries of the village itself.
EcoVillage's openness to academic inquiry is evident. By 2006, six masters
students and two doctoral students from around the country had completed research
projects on EcoVillage life (Dawson 2006; Walker 2005). EcoVillage has other strong
ties to academia. As mentioned above, EcoVillage at Ithaca was formed with support
from the Center for Religion, Ethics, and Social Policy (CRESP), a nonprofit
organization affiliated with Cornell University. And, EcoVillage continues its ties with
Cornell, through both the offering of classes and workshops and the teaching
appointment at Cornell of at least one EcoVillage resident. In 2002, EcoVillage formed a
partnership with the Environmental Studies Department at Ithaca College (IC). Using a
National Science Foundation (NSF) matching grant, EcoVillage and IC have worked
together to create a 'Science of Sustainability' curriculum (Dawson 2006; Walker 2005).
139
Dawson (2006:32) explains that "this partnership has been highly fruitful, leading Ithaca
College to make a commitment to become 'one of the premier college campuses in the
country, modeling sustainability in all aspects' according to the Provost."
EcoVillage's pioneering work is in its affiliations with academic institutions, as
this is a unique and quite mainstream approach for an ecovillage (Walker 2005).
However, EcoVillage is also " ...committed to increasing its teaching capacity" by
creating a group of educators within EcoVillage that can teach college and adult-
education courses (Walker 2005: 181). In addition, there are plans to build an EcoVillage
Education and Research (EVER) Center on-site.
However, EcoVillage at Ithaca's sustainability outreach and education is not only
oriented towards conventional educational avenues. In 2003, EcoVillage was a major
contributor to a formal proposal to form a 'Sustainable Tompkins County,' the county in
which Ithaca is located (Walker 2005). Dawson (2006:31) explains that "committees
associated with this scheme are working on a city car-share scheme, a green development
in the city, waste management, sustainability circles in the schools and many other
initiatives."
EcoVillage's scope reaches beyond local government, as well. EcoVillage is an
active member ofthe Global Ecovillage Network (GEN). As a result, members of
EcoVillage met with Hildur Jackson at Findhom in 2004 to develop "...a standardized
140
introductory training session about ecovillage design that could be taught in ecovillages
around the world" (Walker 2005: 185). In addition, EcoVillage, in collaboration with
Senegalese colleagues, decided to locate the Third International Ecocities Conference in
Yoff, Senegal. This ultimately led to the formation of the Senegalese Ecovillage Network
(Dawson 2006).
As well as local, regional, national, and international notoriety among those
involved in sustainability education and the ecovillage movement, EcoVillage has
received attention and recognition through the media (Dawson 2006; Walker 2005).
EcoVillage has been spotlighted by such media outlets as USIA-TV, CNN TV,
Nickelodeon, E Magazine, The Washington Post, Chicago Sun Times, San Francisco
Chronicle, American Demographics, Progressive Architecture, The Cornell Magazine,
Popular Science, Earth Island Journal, In Context, Co-op America Quarterly, Utne
Reader, The New York Times, Parenting Magazine, Cohousing Magazine, Communities
Magazine, Mother Earth News, Residential Architect, and National Public Radio
(including Morning Edition, All Things Considered, and Living on Earth) (Walker 2005).
Walker (2005) argues that this combination of notoriety, mainstream orientation,
exploration of social and environmental sustainability, and education positions
EcoVillage to help form the movement it is a part of. She holds that EcoVillage" ... is a
living laboratory that draws from the best alternative practices in land use, organic
agriculture, community living, green building, and energy conservation" (Walker
141
2005:3). She argues that ecovillages have much to offer the world. Through living out
their ideals and modeling a new culture, EcoVillage residents both learn from and teach
each other. And, EcoVillage is committed to teaching the general public, as well. As
Walker (2005:220) states: " .. .ifwe are going to change the world, it is crucial that we
reach out and share our commitment, our sweat, our despair, and our joy." Further, she
holds that ripple effects that are already emanating from EcoVillage can be seen in local
government, colleges, and the university, as well as nationally and internationally.
Data Collection
In "Red Carpets and Slammed Doors: Visiting Communities," Geoph Kozeny
(2005b) advises readers on entering communities as a visitor. He details ways in which
visitors should approach and contact communities, how visitors can participate in the
communities they are visiting, and how visitors can frame questions without offending.
The author argues that visitors must clearly understand their own purpose and goals in
visiting, and then must be open about those with community members. Significantly,
Kozeny (2005b:25) argues that "it's important to be clear about your underlying motives
so that both your expectations and the community's are realistic." In addition, he explains
that it is critical to offer information about oneself, not only request it.
When visiting a community, Kozeny (2005b:24) argues, it is important to
"...remember: the community you want to visit is also somebody's home." Further, it is
vital to contribute to the community during a visit. The author explains that "often... the
142
most appreciated contribution is your willingness to pitch in to help with whatever boring
chore needs doing at the moment" (Kozeny 2005b:25). He believes that visitors will be
protected from unpleasant situations if they are attentive to group dynamics and awkward
situations, and remain sensitive. When conducting research, whether academic or for
personal interest, Kozeny (2005b:26) holds that this attentiveness will allow visitors to
"pick up pieces of the hidden story," something vital to participant observation. Further,
he urges visitors "to dig deeper, learn how to ask friendly but penetrating questions,"
something vital to both participant observation and interviewing (Kozeny 2005b:27).
Participant Observation
Because I prioritized service-oriented research (i.e. giving back to the community
in the spirit of reciprocity) I participated in many community activities and work projects.
I wanted to ensure that the community was gaining as much benefit from me during my
visit as I was gaining from it. I did not want to simply 'mine' the community for
information. For this reason, I volunteered to assist in the creation ofpromotional
educational materials for EcoVillage, such as a poster that was presented by the
EcoVillage at Ithaca - Ithaca College partnership at the 'Greening the Campus VII'
conference, which is shown in Figure 17. I also volunteered to create an electronic
version of hand-written survey responses collected from EcoVillage workshop
participants, to tend a community member's garden and houseplants during his brief
absence, to help soundproofthe Second Neighborhood Group (SONG) Common House
dining area, to cook common meals, to do dishes following common meals, and to help
143
residents with gardening, I also helped several families move into new EcoVillage homes
or to move from one EcoVillage home to another,
Ec:[} /jllH~:; -- Cf)Jh~~ J}lJj'tlJ~r;JJ.ll)
1'01"; u:; {,<!11J H})J ~ CUJt U1'~ ClJll1J~~
111 2U02, Ill\: I (' EII\'ll"OlUlh.'lIlnl SlUdlt'.s J>rq~rlllll p;11l1l\;r~J \\llh
r:,oVilbgc:.I1 Itltlll;1l (EVI) 10 11L'\"dnp .:nrricula Illllhl' Scil'lIl..'\: of
SU:illllllahility, under Iht: uusllil'L's of lJ :\ yL"a, NulilllllJ) Sl:i..:lIcc F otllld11ioll
llrllul. Th~ r.:sultUig co)JlIt'oomlloll has 1""'1t ~~nom,ollsh $1I\'r...-=;sflll,
hclplII~ 10 (,:ll:tlp~t.' maJOf ,hanft'S Jor h(llh EVI &. Ie 11 __ \\\.:11 O1S slrull~)'
IIInllClldll~ Ill\: ~lIfTl)IlIIt.hllgCC\mIllUIIII~. 'Illt: Parllll.,.slup 1" 1lI1\\ IIlChlt.!L'd
ill Ilk: »l.TlnaUCIlI hlldl!cl 0111lL' ..:"Iky.c
Sustainable Tompkins:
PrcccdeUl-So:II111g COUllly"iJo.: Il1ltl:lltyo.:
utili/tug botlorn-1.l11& lnp-du\\11 slralq:lo
lor I..-TCiJtillg ... just :1l1t1 l>us:laillithk iulur.... !
:K--I-i S\;~t~;;';-;b-;I;iy Education:
.Wdl·kllll\\11 slIslainabililV ~1I"'ltt)r Jaime Clout!
:lr;lill..:d 10l...;)1 h.'.oclwrs & ~dllllnlSlrJtdrs III
'inmwali\",; l1l":lhtlt~10 h:<.I,1l SU";13iJl,thilitv
Ithaca Carshnre: Local ';1111..:;;1..":>. lloll-pwliL"i anu
hUSJllC..'S le..lt.lCn: \'r':'lhxl a ((\'lIiholl Itl nla"~ II O.:.... lllf atrs
av;uJahl.: rot hnml~ rl:ulal. 1I1:..li.illg 11 p"~"lhk to r!.l\'~ up or
h:ducc lOlr 0\\ lIcrshill
Catalyzing County-wide Sustainability Initiatives
ICampus-Communiry Collaborations I
EVI i-: Iillllll....n\.1110IlHlh kml\\lI
:O:U:o:lllilUllJk o.:d1mnUnil\ ':II1U cdth::ltinn
c.... nh..T 111inks hc.sl pmdicc5 ill
OfEflllic Inrmillr:. grttn btliltlillJ:!'
":ll]H.ltI;;tlllZ. III1J so",:IHI :'U:)'OUlllbilil~,
\\ith
hilllll"-Oll
.... UllC1ililljl
pro~nlllis.
EcoVillage
at Ithaca
u
r
Ithaca
CoUege
11lwl'4 ·"II.:ra.: h.J1r~\ ..I&: hbl:rotll1l1"'
Lollql.~ with. iJuwtlUlllilC lIa.:c. It
hIlS "vn n;lIiu41(l.1 hXOjali!l('tu r.... 'I:o
'I1KtllWbtLiI lii lILCl"W· Udtl1lil
~np"t: "k tau'IJXP..1lnll
(l'fuymm flJW'1
"1ITTl
PltllinwlIllIf...-d
Un~lIIeS$ ~lt"'Kli
:Snstainability Cafes: On-"""I'"'
. ("tlrUllJ:> fCiltlJrillgloc..11 ":>ll1..'akers \~i(h illli.::rw.:li\1.!
:welt:' di~\lS$ionS" 0\ t'r 10..'111 foc<lslUllfh.
-,l'aculty Development Retreats: l'm,dl,,~c
lct.luc<dOIS llllllll' filcul\\' ~1\l.lrc l....·s\ prucli( .... ,; inl..:vchulg
1;'lllll;ul\abIJII~' Lk.'re<s" t1isclpltoes
,
.. ,
Courses on Sllstainability: Cr,"I",~
CI:L'_'~rtlllm lJ$ 1I.!arJ1it1~ COlnml.lllll~· \lIth 511";;' uf mllr~
;'I:) :x..T\;n'·k,Jnllllg pro.j .... ds Photo'
StuJClIls ill "Sul>lain:lbk L:luJ U.~~
'cour.-...: huilt! Ul'\.T c."\dt"'l...;t1rc WIUI
10':'[11 fOft·SI~r.
-THACA
ClIrri<;lIlnJn Development Mini-Grants:
Seed lnoll..:.' sUlllullllJJll:\II\:W h':Jchillg
tnilinli\'l:.'i lll:ill.,;lilillabilil\ ..:JIKOlil'lll
;Jew:;." Ji:x.iplin\.·;, ~in':l\ 10 Ie faculLy
,11""K1l:t.;.oVillagc r~id~nl~
[Communily-Based Projects: M"II;-
"j..",mr.:':'h.:r pW.Jl't;\S ul\'olvlllg ro:~aft.:h_
I OC51l:1II & llu]JlL,nClllrttion \\"lth
1ongoing rVI :uld 1(1('.:11 cOlllmHllll~'
!Jll\'o]\\;t\lICnl
Figure 17. 'Greening the Campus VII' Conference poster created by author for the
EcoVillage at Ithaca - Ithaca College paItnership, to be presented at Ball State
University, September 2007.
144
I understood that the only way to meet people was to pitch in and help with
projects. And, the informal conversations that arose during group work were a valuable
way to glean information about community life. Near the end of my stay, I joined a tour
ofEcoVillage conducted for outside visitors, which gave me the change to compare my
perspective of EcoVillage to that of people who had never been there before.
Because EcoVillage life has no shortage of meetings, I was in a position to attend
numerous meetings, both on-site and off. On-site meetings included Built Environment
Committee meetings, a Village Association meeting, an EcoVillage at Ithaca (EVI)
Board of Directors meeting, a 'Green Cluster' (the next proposed development at
EcoVillage, now known as TREE) meeting with potential future residents, and a showing
and critique of an educational slideshow presented by Joan Bokaer. Off-site, I
participated in a meeting among representatives of EcoVillage at Ithaca and Ithaca
College dealing with their Sustainability Initiative partnership, as well as an 'EcoCities'
meeting among Ithaca community members, many of whom were involved in
'SustainabIe Tompkins'.
During my two week stay, I paid for lodging in the First Resident Group (FROG)
Common House for the majority of the time, and was hosted by a resident for my last two
nights. It was with this resident and others that I took part in a 'game night', watched
home movies and looked at photos, cooked lunches and dinners in their homes, swam in
the pond, and generally socialized. I joined community celebrations and watched a live
145
performance from a visiting bluegrass musician in the FROG Common House. I attended
Ithaca's GrassRoots Festival of Music and Dance with several EcoVillage residents, as
well as another music event in Ithaca. With EcoVillage residents and visitors, I cooked a
few and ate even more common meals, and did my share of after-dinner dishes.
I also made a strong effort to gain a sense of the place, to develop my own
relationship with the land. I did this mainly through exercise: running and hiking on the
many EcoVillage trails. I also volunteered at West Haven Farm, swam in the pond
several times, and took an on-site yoga class. These were not all solitary experiences, as
developing a connection with a place was not something that I believed required solitude.
Participant observation allowed me to gain a better understanding planning and
decision-making at EcoVillage. Participant observation also allowed me to gain a sense
of the rhythm of daily life, allowed me the opportunity to participate in community
activities and celebrations, and allowed me the occasion to better understand the
relationship EcoVillage residents have with the town of Ithaca.
Semi-Structured Interviews
While at EcoVillage, I conducted eight semi-structured interviews with nine
participants. Of these participants, eight were EcoVillage residents, and one was a visitor.
These interviews were conducted in the homes of participants and nearly all participants
declined the opportunity to use a pseudonym. This is because EcoVillage has a very open
146
communication style amongst residents and many participants felt that they could be
comfortably public with their commentary. Each interview lasted between thirty and
ninety minutes and all were recorded using a digital recorder.
Because I conducted these interviews towards the end of my stay, I was in a
position to use the knowledge I had gained during my participant observation to ask more
provocative and illustrative questions than I would have been otherwise. My interviews
were the ideal compliment to my participant observation experience. To view my
interview questions, refer to Appendix A.
147
CHAPTER VI
RESULTS
Cohousing demonstrates a physical, instrumental, and social context within which
pro-environmental attitudes and behavior are nurtured and sustained. Residents
are able to fashion their physical surroundings (i.e. their buildings and
neighborhood) to accord with their aspirations in ways not available, or even
conceived of, within mainstream society. Their architecture and site planning
facilitate interaction, which builds familiarity. Social intercourse is encouraged
and further supported by intent. Familiarity facilitates 'consciousness raining'
and the spreading of 'functional knowledge.' Relationships of substance evolve,
leading to increased sharing, support, and trust. Bonding occurs, which cements
attachment to people and place and a growing 'sense of community.' Feelings of
belonging feed a sense of self and encourage participation in 'civic' life, which in
turn builds skills, confidence, and a sense ofself-efficacy. Empowerment provides
impetus for the application ofawareness and attitudes in practical ways.... in such
a society there is a lot of energy and motivation and abilities for improvements
and change (Misztal, 1996:216/... So whilst much of the... data indicate less
than substantive change in levels ofconsumption or pro-environmental behavior,
it must be borne in mind that all cohousing communities in North America are in
their infancy (Meltzer 2000:129).
In this chapter, I will review the results of my qualitative methods case study of
EcoVillage at Ithaca, then discuss the rationales residents believe influenced their
decision to move to EcoVillage. A review of residents' thoughts about mainstream
American culture and the impacts of consumerism will follow. Then, I will consider
EcoVillage as a model of sustainable living and investigate the efforts of those living
there to create and maintain a sustainable culture. And finally, I will talk about the major
critiques residents have of EcoVillage life. The conclusion of the chapter will be a brief
1 Misztal, B.A. 1996. Trust in modern societies. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
148
introduction to the question of EcoVillage's impact on the rest of the world, the topic I
will tum to in the final chapter of this document.
Why Move to EcoVillage at Ithaca?
Kirby (2003 :327) explains that in his research of EcoVillage at Ithaca, he found
that this particular community was appealing to would-be residents ...
. , .on both personal and globallideologicallevels. In personal terms, at the same
time as commitment to the EVI project held out the promise of a fulfilling way of
life that would serve to confirm self-identity as a socially or environmentally
concerned individual, in a wider sense it provided an opportunity to demonstrate a
viable alternative to the present social mode. In personal terms this commitment
provides for the balancing of the sacred/expressive aspects of making a life with
meaning against the purely instrumental aspects of making a living.
Kirby (2003) found that most residents were concerned more with the creation of a
socially connected community than simply with environmental issues when deciding to
move to EcoVillage. Additionally, he found that many residents had been social or
environmental activists prior to moving and wanted to continue that portion of their lives.
Further, Kirby's (2003:332) research implies that:
... prior to moving to EVI, residents experienced a sense of dissonance between
their identities and the behaviors that they were constrained to follow, and which
were seen to perpetuate the degradation of the social and ecological environments.
He argues that by moving to EcoVillage, residents found the "consonance between
identity and behavior" that they were seeking (Kirby 2003:332).
In my research, I also found that participants expressed myriad reasons for
moving to EcoVillage. Some residents moved because they were hoping to experience a
149
greater sense of communitythan that found in mainstream culture, and to focus on
deepening social relationships. Several of these residents were very inspired by the
consensus decision-making model. Others felt something was lacking in their mainstream
existence, while others simply felt the move was a logical next step in a quest to live out
their values and to push the envelope in that respect.
Some moved because they felt strongly about EcoVillage's environmental and
sustainability agendas, including land stewardship, farms, resource sharing, and the
employment of green building and renewable energy technologies. Others connected
deeply with the land, the aesthetics and sense of place, and the surrounding natural and
urban fabric of Ithaca, New York. Still others were attracted to the educational mission
and the idea of being a model to mainstream society and an articulation of a positive
vision for social change. Some residents had more of a utopian vision when coming to
EcoVillage. And others were seeking a sense of insulation from mainstream society, for
some in which their children were safe to play, raised by the village.
However, most would-be residents were attracted to multiple components of
EcoVillage and moved to experience all of them. As one resident, Laura2, explained:
... the reason why we were inspired by community: it's twofold. It's very much
our environmental values and wanting a place that at least had a commitment to
those ideals. And secondly, a commitment to the concept of intentional
2 Many of my semi-structured interview participants explicitly did not want me to use pseudonyms. This is
because EcoVillage has a very open communication style amongst residents and many participants felt that
they could be comfortably public with their commentary. In this document, you will find some pseudonyms
and some real names, although I do not make a distinction between the two.
150
community and building relationships and consensus decision-making...
Sometimes you'll talk to people here and they'll say they 'oh, I came because of
the environmental agenda' and some people will say 'I came to build community'
and you'll find some people who, like me, that wanted the ... dual experience.
As Laura further explained:
What drew me to this place above all other places we researched is that it was a
combination of models. And it made it truly unique. That you had the cohousing
model, you had this organic agriculture model, you had this educational mission,
and this ambition to pursue a certain level of land stewardship. So you bring those
things together in one place and it makes for an interesting mix of opportunity.
Elan, EcoVillage Education Coordinator and resident, was also attracted to a combination
of EcoVillage's characteristics:
It was a combination of cohousing with a vision, similar education mission here
as my own, Ithaca being an outstanding place to live and proximity to family ...
But, what I liked about it in particular was its access to mainstream people. So I
felt this was a place where I could have a lot of impact. So even though it didn't
give me the full inspiration I wanted in terms of an integrated way of looking at
things, I still felt like it was a really powerful choice to make and it's something
that my family could live with.
Above all, EcoVillage's environmental agenda, its focus on deepening social
relationships, its educational mission, and its mainstream orientation emerged as the
dominant draws for residents when choosing to become part of this community. In
conflict with their appreciation of EcoVillage's attachment to the mainstream (for reasons
of promoting the educational mission and for reasons of personal comfort and
employment), many residents expressed deep concerns about the condition of mainstream
American culture.
151
Thoughts on American Culture
There was a strong sentiment among nearly all participants that mainstream,
affluent, American society is flawed in serious ways. Several themes common to many
participants arose, including the feeling that mainstream people are oriented towards
external goals, that they are outwardly oriented in their unsatisfied quest for happiness
and life satisfaction, that there is a lack of interconnection among people, and that many
are unable to find deep meaning in life. As Elan told me:
I. .. feel people live hollow lives. They're so busy pursuing the external stuff that
they wouldn't even know what it means to have a deeply purposeful sense of
life ...There are certain transformative moments in everyone's life when people
have that sense of wholeness and purpose. But, people don't expect to have it as a
norm. They get it in little pieces, but. .. most of the rest of the time they're kind of
bumbling through on automatic pilot. And it's really, really sad.
Residents have specific personal goals that they believe living at EcoVillage will help
them achieve. For many, these goals include increasing life satisfaction by reducing
external orientation and deepening social relationships and connectedness within the
community.
Consumerism
When probed specifically about consumerism, many participants criticized the
false link between material consumption and happiness that is forwarded in mainstream
culture. Participants expressed concern for the global strength of corporations, the uneven
distribution of wealth, and the ways in which many Americans are unaware of the
152
impacts of their consumption choices (i.e. commodity fetishism). One resident, Steve,
explained to me this false link between material consumption and well-being:
I sort of think of it [consumption] as sort of an ersatz. It's a replacement for ...
things that might make more of a difference. I mean, we are bombarded from day
one with messages that basically say: 'You suck; if you had this, you wouldn't
suck as much' ... Advertising does not prop up people's self-image. It tears it
down. And then we've destroyed many of the societal support structures ... And
you get this message that buying is what's gonna do it. And it never does because
it doesn't. So you need to buy more. So, it's ... a great scam but it doesn't work
very well for the people in it.
Another resident, Harry, felt the same:
Well ... the culture is ... it's a buy, buy, buy culture. So, they always want you to
buy more. You will be happy... You can't be happy unless you have the latest
BMW or the latest house or the latest vacation in Mexico or whatever. ..
Otherwise you can't be happy. Of course, that's the message they're sending you.
People fall into that trap, and of course, it's absolutely wrong ... you will never be .
happy with consumerized things because the more grasp for things, the more you
grasp for things. You never get to the end... You'll never be satiated. And you'll
get really unhappy after a while. There's always another step, like in keeping up
with the Joneses. There's always another step. So, it's always like a rat race... The
happiest people are not people who necessarily have a lot of... material goods.
Because of this understanding, many EcoVillage residents deliberately shun excessive
material consumption, and look to other means of achieving fulfillment.
Evident in the preceding quote, many residents criticized what they termed 'the
rat race' or 'the treadmill', the life situation of many Americans in which they are
continually seeking life satisfaction through consumerism - a means that cannot fulfill
the end. As Elan explained:
On the whole, I think if you're life is busy with making the money to get all the
goodies that you could get. .. to get a better car, and a better computer, and a
better boat, and a better house, and a better college education. If your life is ...
153
busy doing that, then you could stay real busy getting the better house, college
education, computer, and house. Then, you're not a happy person. Your life is
mortgaged off to a treadmill.
The majority of participants expressed their belief that because of this combination of
external orientation and lack of satisfaction, many Americans are alienated, lonely, and
unaware of how or what to do to alter in their lives to relieve the situation.
Collapse
Dawson (2006) discusses, in broader terms, many of the social, economic, and
environmental issues he perceives exist in the world today. He argues that an increase in
the price of fossil fuels, an increase in damage resulting from global warming, a decrease
in food supply (because of reduced availability of fossil fuel-based agricultural inputs), a
decrease in water quality and/or quantity, a decrease in soil fertility, a financial-market
catastrophe, and terrorist attacks all threaten to destroy our current gloablized system.
Like Dawson, participants also expressed concern for the catastrophic environmental,
economic, and social changes currently occurring as a result of excessive material
consumption in industrialized nations, as structured by capitalism.
There was a strong sentiment among nearly all participants that this is a
precarious system on the verge of collapse. As one resident, Kelly, explained:
It's [capitalism has] been going on for 400 years and... it's reaching some sort of
pinnacle now, where the whole world is capitalized almost. And the crash is
coming. And what's coming after, unfortunately... when systems like this have
collapse in the past. .. they don't go down easy. You know like feudalism, slavery
154
systems ... empire systems often go down with a lot of war and stuff like that. So,
hopefully we can mitigate the circumstances ... mitigate... this crashing paradigm.
Most were quite matter-of-fact about their expectation that globalized capitalism,
although offering some benefits, was going to change dramatically. However, most
people I talked with focused more discussion on how society, at the local, regional,
national, and global levels, would cope with this fundamental change. As Kelly
continued:
It's gotta come down sooner or later and then what do we build after? ...
Capitalism I guess is tied into oiL .. so that's peaking ... Who knows what's gonna
happen with that. I mean eventually, we're gonna have to get back to local
economies ... It's not that radical to me to think that we're gonna live locally
'cause... we did live locally in this country up untiL .. 100 years ago, for the most
part.
Dawson (2006) also expresses uncertainty about how the changes will play out. He
believes that:
... there is substantial evidence that we are moving ever closer to the edge of a
cliff... There is much uncertainty about how the transition will unfold and over
how long a period. It may be the result of a consciously chosen path of 'powering
down' or, as looks progressively more likely, imposed upon us by a rupture that
dislocated the entire system (Dawson 2006:76).
Dawson (2006:77) believes that life will have to "become simpler and more
decentralized" for people to survive. Many residents believed that EcoVillage offers one
tool with which industrialized society can combat looming environmental crises and the
crashing capitalist paradigm by living a simpler, more bioregionallife, as suggested by
Dawson (2006).
155
EcoVillage as a Model
Many residents understood the role of EcoVillage at Ithaca to be that of a model,
an example to society of an alternative way to organize socially, economically, and
environmentally. In response to this belief that capitalism is nearing its end and the
environment is being destroyed, participants talked of the necessity of creating a new
paradigm. As Liz, EcoVillage Co-founder, Director, and resident, explained to me:
.. .I fully expect that we are going to be facing very hard times economically,
environmentally, socially. You know, I think we're in for some real difficulties as
we find fuel costs skyrocketing with peak oil, and global warming disruptions.
And so, I think now more than ever before, I think that we all need to learn again,
at this time in history as a human species, how to be content with fewer material
goods and more spiritual and social connection. I think that's really what brings
people true happiness and satisfaction ... And so, I think true satisfaction is
figuring out how we can make a more equitable society in which people, all
people, have enough to live and are able to have the care that they need, whether
it's food or lodging or staying warm in the winter or having health care. And, so
we need massive re-ordering of our priorities in I think this country more than any
place else really needs that.
In this new paradigm, people have reduced levels of material consumption (especially
fossil fuels), a more localized economy, and a transition to means other than
consumerism of seeking happiness and life satisfaction. Norwood and Smith (1995) argue
that to take hold, this new paradigm requires living examples for others to follow. They
articulate that:
By... emphasizing the models for change that already exist and by inventing new
ones - ones that balance the international economy with a strong bioregional
economy - we will move towards a more joyous and fulfilling lifestyle that will
serve our needs with a wider range of options (Norwood and Smith 1995:14).
Residents believe that EcoVillage offers one model for this new paradigm.
156
Many participants recognized that letting go of the 'American Dream' would be
challenging for many, but believed that as people leave the 'rat race' or step off the
'treadmill' the benefits in terms of life satisfaction, natural resource security, and self-
reliance would outweigh the challenges. As one repeated EcoVillage visitor, Will,
argued:
The more that we can do as culture, particularly western Americanized culture ...
to simplify, particularly with regard to oil, the geopolitical ramifications of our oil
use, the better off everyone is ... Even from a self-reliance standpoint, if you can
wean yourself from the utilities and from these giant corporations, how much
more secure is your family or your community? There are so many unintended
benefits of living in community... the more of this that we get, the more stable
our entire society becomes ... As you free yourself from the treadmill of having to
work and enriching a small percentage of the population... you're able
to ...provide for your own needs within your community..
Participants believed that individuals, society, and the natural environment will benefit in
terms of life satisfaction, fulfillment, and security from a shift to this new paradigm.
Educational Mission
Participants understood EcoVillage's mission to implicitly include an educational
component, as well as the articulation of a positive vision for social change. In addition,
participants understood that EcoVillage was created with the intent of modeling
sustainable culture to middle-class, mainstream Americans. As EcoVillage co-founder,
Director, and resident Liz Walker (2005:161) explains in EcoVillage at Ithaca:
Pioneering a Sustainable Culture, EcoVillage...
. . .is designed to be a living example of a more sustainable way of life - one that
. demonstrates both social and ecological alternatives to the status quo.,. Our
educational style can best be described as experiential, project-based learning ...
157
As residents we are engaged in a fascinating social experiment. We have endless
opportunities to test out methods of strategic planning, consensus decision
making, conflict resolution, and creative parenting. And we can experiment with
such things as community celebrations, green building, native landscaping, and
alternative transportation. We truly are a learning community... At the same time
we are eager to share what we learn with the broader public. Although most of our
teaching takes place with college students, we also host visitors of all ages and
backgrounds. And we are educational partners with others who are creating a
wave of new approaches to solutions-based learning.
Dawson (2006) believes that the greatest success of ecovillages in general results from
the creation and maintenance of ties to mainstream society, particularly with regard to
education.
Although many had critiques of targeting this mainstream audience, most
believed that this is a strategic means to affecting change within a population that is
required to change the most. As Steve explained:
... ecovillages for the well-off are OK because... those are the people you need to
reach, both because they are the people who are using most of the resources and
because they're the people who are looked at as a model.
In addition, many expressed that EcoVillage demonstrates to these mainstream folks the
option of having a higher quality of life, with reduced material consumption and benefits
for the environment, without experiencing a painful sacrifice, as the following quotes
illustrate.
In this particular example what we're trying to do is show that even middle-class
Americans can greatly reduce their consumption and have a far better quality of
life at the same time (Liz)
It's a place where people could see that hopeful change, systemic change, is really
possible. And they can see that we're all very regular people muddling through.
We're not eco-zealots, we're not. ... weirdo nuts... But... that's the most useful
158
message here is that this is an attractive, achievable way to live. It's not about
painful sacrifice; it's about smart transitions ... So it really makes people shift
their ultimate, suburban, American paradigm and see that you can still have green,
still have privacy, and yet have community and connectedness and cooperation
and shared vision, shared work... all those things that make life feel so rich
(Elan).
EcoVillage at Ithaca is not demanding that middle-class America stop being middle-class.
Rather, it is demonstrating a way to continue a middle-class existence, while reducing the
negative impacts of a consumption-based lifestyle, deepening social relationships, and
working towards sustainability. EcoVillage works to change the perception, articulated
by Meltzer (2005:4) that ecovillages and other...
.. .alternative lifestyles are neither attractive to, nor viable for, most mainstream
folk ... Perhaps their most important function is to model important aspects of a
future sustainable society, demonstrating that consumerist values can be resisted
if the circumstance and the will exist.
In sum, EcoVillage aspires to demonstrate to middle-class folks how to create a more
socially, economically, and environmentally sustainable culture.
Building a Sustainable Culture
McCamant and Durrett (1989: 109) argue that resident participation in the
development process, although a complicating factor, "contributes significantly to the
community atmosphere" in cohousing communities. They argue that "bonds between
residents are spawned during the planning and design process as the group works
together on issues closely tied to their personal values" (McCamant and Durrett
1989: 109). Further, they hold that the common facilities facilitate the continuation of the
community ties that form during the development process. Meltzer (2005) similarly
159
argues that collective action bonds people with one another and with a place, thereby
fostering a sense of community.
Many participants expressed the feeling that having participated in the design and
building of the community, their homes, or making contributions to EcoVillage in other
ways (such as participating in consensus decision-making or work parties), augmented
their sense of ownership of, and investment in, EcoVillage. Harry explained how his
participation in physically building community, as well as consensus-decision making,
increased his sense of ownership of the community:
.. .if you actively, actively participate in what you do, what you say actually does
change things. So you feel it's more that you own it more. You own the process,
you own the house, you own the community, you own the development. And,
therefore ... you have a greater stake in the whole thing.
Elan used the example of building the SONG Common House together with other
residents to illustrate a similar sentiment:
We put a ton of collective energy into the ... second floor of the SONG Common
House which was reused from a gym at Cornell. It was heading for the dump.
And we put a lot of sweat and tears into that gorgeous maple floor. .. And that's
always going to be something that makes me cry. It was just so beautiful and so
much work, but it's like we did it together.
Residents told that this strength of commitment and strength of community derived from
the process of physically building a community together empowered them to make
meaningful changes in their lives, in terms of material consumption and interpersonal
communication, for instance. This sentiment reinforces McCamant and Durrett's (1989)
assertion that community bonds are formed through this process.
160
Maintaining a Sustainable Culture
McCamant and Durrett (1989) argue that the physical design of cohousing
communities provides for casual interaction, which provides a social atmosphere that has
not only practical, but interpersonal advantages. McCamant and Durrett (1989: 111) argue
that residents value " ... chatting with neighbors, feeling comfortable asking them for a
cup of sugar or to watch the children, and allowing children to wander freely around the
development." This latter benefit, the creation of a child-friendly community allows
residents greater personal freedom than the single-family house neighborhood. This is
because, as Meltzer (2000: 125) explains, "the community becomes an extended family."
In my interviews, residents echoed these sentiments of McCamant and Durrett
(1989) and Meltzer (2000). Residents articulated that the physical design of the
community facilitated interaction among neighbors and a child-friendly environment. Of
greater import, they expressed that through living out their values together with a
community of similarly-minded individuals, they felt that they were doing something
meaningful that would have an impact beyond their own lives and make a difference in
the world.
A widespread belief among residents was that EcoVillage facilitates the creation
and maintenance of a sustainable culture. With its common facilities, pedestrian streets,
and shared work and play, the design of EcoVillage, combined with the group support
161
found in community, facilitates resource sharing and reduced material consumption. As
Elan explained:
Having the village scale stabilizes things because there's always somebody with a
resource you need and they're always somebody who wants a resource or skill
that you have. So, you really get this experience of 'I live in a world where I
belong, where I feel connected, where resources are available to me, where I'm
not utterly dependent on commercial, corporate stuff to get what I need in life.'
You have that unmistakable experience here ... There's shared child care, there's
shared parenting circles, there's shared community garden wisdom...
In addition, many participants expressed that there was continual learning amongst
EcoVillagers about how to make a more sustainable life.
. Changing Behavior
Many, such as Mary E. Clark (1995) in "Changes in Euro-American Values
Needed for Sustainability" and E. Scott Geller (1995) in "Integrating Behaviorism and
Humanism for Environmental Protection," argue that participating in community leads
people towards more pro-environmental behavior. Clark (1995) argues that the current
Euro-American worldview is maladaptive, especially in the face of pressing concerns
about the sustainability of these lifestyles. She argues that this worldview has promoted
selfish and anti-environmental behavior. However, humans have a deep need for
belonging, which fosters a sense of personal identity and the derivation of meaning. By
nurturing this need, Clark (1995) holds that Euro-American society will adopt lifestyles
that are more personally satisfying and more environmentally-friendly. Geller (1995)
elaborates, arguing that personal control, self-efficacy, optimism, empowerment, self-
esteem, and belongingness promote caring and altruism, including demonstrating
162
environmentally-friendly behaviors and motivating others to do the same. These
characteristics strongly mirror the intrinsic values Kasser and collaborative authors argue
promote greater personal, social, and ecological well-being (Arndt et. al. 2004a, Brown
and Kasser 2005; Kasser 2002; Kasser et. al. 2004; Sheldon and Kasser 2001).
Meltzer (2000: 110) agrees that although many scholars have documented the
connection between consumption and environmental degradation, very few scholars have
probed the " ... contextual determinants of pro-environmental behavior change." He
believes that cohousing communities are an excellent venue for this type of research. In
his own research of cohousing communities, Meltzer (2000: 110) found that community
plays a strong role" .. .in the transference of environmental awareness into attitude and
practice."
Primarily using survey techniques, Meltzer (2000) conducted a study of
environmentally-friendly behavior modification and the motivations for such changes in
cohousing communities. He explains that people are not limited by their capacity to
change their behaviors, but by their knowledge about how to do so. Although many
Americans are familiar with practices such as recycling, they are not as familiar with
such concepts as voluntary simplicity, for example. Meltzer (2000: 119) explains that:
When members of cohousing groups join with little knowledge of such practices,
they inevitably come into close contact with others who do. During the
development phase, and for the life of the community, there is opportunity for
members with established environmental practice to influence others less
..._------ ----------------
163
committed. It can happen overtly via discussion, education, or leadership, or
covertly through socialization and/or behavior modeling.
As the above quote hints, (Meltzer 2005: 129) argues that there are two forms of
interaction that help to raise" ...environmental awareness and... spread... knowledge
about how to apply environmental values in practice." These are interpersonal influence
(or behavior modeling) and exchange (or direct education).
Meltzer (2000) holds that interpersonal influence is subtle, but effective. He
explains that many of his survey respondents reported that" ... the behavior of neighbors
informs and influences their own pro-environmental practices" (Meltzer 2000: 120). And,
it is the facilitation of certain practices within cohousing communities that allows
residents to have environmentally-friendly lifestyles that they would not have considered
in mainstream life. Further, many of his respondents communicated that community
support was the strongest influence on their environmental behaviors (Meltzer 2000).
Meltzer argues that the reduced material consumption that comes with living more simply
and more environmentally-aware is a direct affront to the commodity fetishism found in
the mainstream.
In terms of exchange (or direct education), Meltzer (2000: 122) argues that the
quality and quantity depends" ...upon the quality of social relationships within the group,
being most likely to occur in a context of mutual respect and receptivity." He argues that
164
daily contact reinforces learning and results in enduring pro-environmental behavioral
and attitudinal changes.
As stated above, many of my interviewees expressed that there was continual
learning within the community about how to make a more sustainable life. Residents
were encouraged to change their behavior through peer pressure, which could be either
positive or negative. And, residents noted that direct education was not only directed
towards those outside the community. Rather, direct education occurred in many loci
along the continuum from formal to informal exchange, including workshops,
discussions, e-mail exchanges, and other forms of wisdom sharing.
Reduced Material Consumption
Meltzer (2005) also found that cohousing residents' environmentally-friendly
practices were enhanced by the sharing and support present in their social relationships
within the community. He explains that there are two main ways sharing occurs within
cohousing communities: informal sharing of personal possessions and formal sharing of
common facilities. Meltzer tells that proponents of cohousing hold that sharing reduces
material consumption, because residents are able to live in smaller houses and consume
fewer material goods. Similarly, McCamant and Durrett (1989:120) assert that cohousing
facilitates resource sharing, including car sharing, and that "...community facilities
certainly make it easier for residents to adjust to smaller units."
165
In my research, EcoVillage residents confirmed Meltzer (2005) and McCamant
and Durrett's (1989) assertions. In large part because of resource sharing, many residents
expressed that they had significantly reduced their material consumption as a result of
living at EcoVillage. Steve told me that a strong community was necessary to make the
changes that are required to live sustainably...
.. .because that's what make living close together feel like a plus rather than a
minus. That's what makes it easy to share things. That's what provides some sort
of reinforcement for acts of simplicity that. .. do make your life more difficult,
like not owning something. I think... there's stuff I don't buy because I can
borrow it, or we've got it in the common house, that I otherwise might have to
have. In that sense it influences that behavior a lot because those facilities are
there ... It's easier to do it in a group. It's both psychologically easier and
physically easier.
As did Meltzer (2005), I found that within the community, the impact of a strong sense of
community in terms of resource sharing is twofold. There is the concrete material reality
of having one resource that can be used by all. And, there is also pressure within the
community to share resources and support for doing so. Meltzer (2005) articulates this
twofold impact of a strong sense of community, arguing that this comes in the form of
practical support and moral support.
Meltzer (2000, 2005) argues that these forms of support and sharing result in
reduced material consumption of many different items and services. For instance, mutual
aid and informal childcare, " ...can save money, alleviate stress and imbue relationships
with substance" (Meltzer 2005: 142). In addition, the comfort residents feel among each
other and their sense of community supports their living harmoniously at higher densities
166
than in middle-class mainstream neighborhoods, thus reducing environmental impact
(Meltzer 2000,2005).
There are also systems in place in cohousing communities that promote a
reduction in the consumption of material resources. Meltzer (2000, 2005) found that
waste management systems (free boxes, repair, reuse, recycling, and composting), food
procurement practices, and common meals all contribute to pro-environmental behaviors
among residents. FUlthermore, sharing vehicles promotes biking, walking, car-pooling
and the use of public transportation. In addition, because cohousers combine errands with
other members of the community, and because "vocational, social and recreational
opportunities" are offered at home, residents are able to further reduce their use of
automobiles (Meltzer 2005:116).
At EcoVillage, I found that participants did report reduced material consumption .
resulting from many of the factors identified by Meltzer (2000, 2005). However, many
residents recognized that although they had smaller ecological footprints than mainstream
Americans, that continued reductions in material consumption were still necessary. This
quote from Elan illustrates:
Ecovillage is half as consumptive as the rest of America, and America is five
times as consumptive as it needs to be. So we've got a long way to go. But. ..
we're definitely, firmly on the right track.
Moreover, several participants articulated tensions that exist between the levels of
material consumption of various residents.
167
Some residents expressed that other residents were still consuming at very high
levels, which was a disappointment. Others felt that they themselves were still consuming
at higher levels than they would like, mainly because of EcoVillage life requiring
residents to maintain one foot in mainstream culture. For example, Walker (2005) notes
that in the face of societal dependence on automobiles, most EcoVillage families have
two cars and use them everyday. As Lucy, a resident, said:
I see levels of consumption here that shock me.... And that we're an ecovillage...
.. .the part that's hard for me about living here is I'm actually a way more go
towards simplicity person than this infrastructure makes easy.
Phebe, another resident, expressed a similar feeling:
... one of the things I would like to see here is a way for each other to keep
challenging each other to think about our consumption and to really, significantly
change it. 'Cause... that's one of the aspects of my dissonance here, is the
consumption that goes on here. I don't see much of difference here than elsewhere
else, frankly. Not a significant difference, and... including me... The point is, is
to have that be a priority of being here. That's why we're here. And, really
challenge each other to find ways to make a huge difference in our consumption.
These and other residents explained that they are perceived by others, and by themselves,
to be consuming too much. However, they articulated that the mainstream orientation of
EcoVillage, which attracts many professionals, requires residents to secure employment
in mainstream culture. This creates a situation in which residents are compelled to
consume more than is sustainable. Residents explained that in terms of travel, especially
by automobile and airplane, they were personally challenged by their own consumption.
As Laura explained, this was also the case with consumer purchases:
- ._-_ ...._---------------~
168
And then suddenly you feel like you should bring your purchases in in the dark so
that you can have some privacy around when you do choose to consume
(laughs) ... I live here right in the middle of the neighborhood and have to pass
this intersection in order to get into my house and 1... I feel a little uncomfortable
about that sometimes. Sometimes Ijust have to have days where I'm an average
person.
In sum, EcoVillage residents share a desire to create a more sustainable culture. In many
ways they do so. The commitment residents feel towards EcoVillage and its mission that
stems from building community results in greater ease in making meaningful changes in
residents' lives, including sharing resources and reducing material consumption.
However, many residents feel that this is not enough, that they need to be pressing each
other and themselves to an even greater degree so that they consume fewer material items
and reduce their consumption of fossil fuels.
Residents' Critiques ofEcoVillage
In addition to critiques about the levels of material consumption that exist at
EcoVillage, many participants leveled numerous other critiques. The majority of
participants took the opportunity to discuss with me the 'challenges' of EcoVillage life to
heart, and spent a significant portion of time airing their concerns and troubles, and
sometimes venting. However, although many residents experienced significant
frustrations about EcoVillage life, they were quick to espouse the benefits, expressing
that like any neighborhood, there was a mixture of benefits and frustrations.
169
Kirby (2003) identifies that one of the main benefits of EcoVillage living is
connectedness. He notes five types of cOllilectedness: "connection with the wild
landscape... with community... with a cultivated landscape of benign human activity... a
sense of personal integration... [and] connection through timelintergenerational
sustainability" (Kirby 2003:331). Kirby (2004) argues that the "spatial arrangement of its
[EcoVillage at Ithaca's] built form" contributes to this connectedness among residents. In
addition, residents identified the benefits to children as a positive aspect of EcoVillage
life (Kirby 2003). Norwood and Smith (1995:53) identify other potential benefits,
including:
...family support, co-ownership, resident control, more personal and family time,
companionship, co-parenting, childcare and after-school activities, environmental
protection, energy savings, gardening and food processing, access to urban culture
and conveniences, and reduced use of the car. But more than that, people yearn
for a deeper human connection to'others in a common place where they can say,
'We belong'.
Nearly all of these benefits were identified by EcoVillage residents, as discussed in the
preceding pages.
In my research, I found that for most residents, the benefits outweigh the
frustrations. Kirby (2003) also found this to be true. Everyone he interviewed had
"positive evaluations and experiences of life at EVI" and" ... expressed that benefits
outweigh drawbacks" (Kirby 2003:328). This is why, even in the face of considerable
questioning about whether EcoVillage was the right place to be, participants choose to
remain.
170
The main challenges residents identified to me had to do with the mainstream
orientation of EcoVillage life, related issues of affordability and time, and the feeling that
the community and individuals were not making strong enough efforts towards
sustainability. Other challenges include diversity and the treatment of minority
populations. These will all be discussed below.
Diversity
EcoVillage, as a community, struggles to augment its socioeconomic and ethnic
diversity (Walker 2005). As already mentioned, EcoVillage is primarily a white, middle-
class community (Kirby 2004; Meltzer 2000). Meltzer (2000), in his survey of cohousing
residents, found that 80% have a college education, 50% have either a master's or
doctoral degree, and 95% are of European descent. As Norwood and Smith (1995:354)
articulate, in the case of cohousing there is a need to extend this lifestyle to minority
populations:
The recent success of CoRousing communities demonstrates how increasing
numbers of people can live better for less by learning to share meals in a common
house, reduce car trips, and save costs, energy, time, and resources. Thus far,
these substantial benefits have been enjoyed mostly by the middle class. The
challenge now it so expand the advantages of living better for less to the lower
income population groups who are increasingly being abandoned to declining
income and fewer options, yet are being sent the double standard message that
they cannot impose an adverse environmental impact as they try to improve their
standard of living.
They argue that cohousing has the potential to provide a tool for everyone to have" ... a
chance to heal and recover from pseudo-individuality, consumerism, alienation, poverty,
171
homelessness, environmental degradation, and addiction to the car" (Norwood and Smith
1995:354).
In addition to racial, ethnic, and religious minorities, as well as those at a
socioeconomic disadvantage, the need to extend community life to minorities also
includes those who are differently-abled. Walker (2005) identifies, and residents
expressed to me, the need to incorporate infrastructure for accessibility into the
community. This accessibility includes not only that for people using wheelchairs, but
also for the aging and elderly, as well as those with ailments such as Multiple Chemical
Sensitivity (MCS) (Meltzer 2005; Walker 2005). As Meltzer (2005:143) notes, it is
" ...difficult to accommodate all the needs of members with ailments such as
hypersensitivity to chemicals and synthetics" and "...consideration is not often extended
to the common house" (Meltzer 2005: 143). Although EcoVillage did extend MCS
considerations to the SONG Common House, at the time of my visit, there were
continuing negotiations about how to accommodate people with these types of illnesses
in other common spaces.
Mainstream Orientation
As mentioned above, EcoVillage at Ithaca has an explicitly mainstream
orientation. This means that the goal is to create a model of sustainable living that is
appealing to mainstream America. This orientation necessitates the maintenance of a
particular standard of living within EcoVillage: a middle-class standard of living. The
172
majority of frustrations that residents discussed revolved around this middle-class
mainstream nature. There is a tension between the power this mainstream orientation
gives EcoVillage as an educational model of sustainable living, and the obstruction this
mainstream orientation erects that prevents residents from pushing the envelope towards
more sustainable lifestyles.
Related to this mainstream orientation requiring residents to maintain mainstream
employment is the issue of time. Walker (2005:212) identifies this challenge:
Time constraints affect everyone at EVI. Many of us feel stretched by our
multiple responsibilities. There are neighborhood and village-wide meetings to
attend and committees and work parties that need participants. As we grow and
develop, complex community issues also arise and need to be resolved. Then
there are all the tasks associated with making a living and having a family. And
some people in our community have high-powered jobs. If they were less driven,
then they would have more time to enjoy a slower-paced life and contribute more
to community and educational activities ... Of course time pressures are not unique
to EcoVillage. In general North Americans face more of a time crunch than do
individuals elsewhere in the world (Walker 2005:212).
Kirby (2003:328) also found that living in community contributes as much complexity to
residents' lives as it eliminates. Residents expressed to me that they were challenged by
the time demands of EcoVillage life. Many residents explained that setting personal
boundaries, although also challenging, was the only solution to this challenge.
Affordability
Another challenge of EcoVillage life is affordability. Franck (1989) explains that
one disadvantage of the cohousing model is that a private home in a cohousing
173
community is not likely to be more affordable than a home (house or apartment) in a
traditional American neighborhood. McCamant and Durrett (1994), Meltzer (2000,
2005), and Kirby (2004) also argue that homes in cohousing communities are not
affordable and have approximately the same cost as similarly-sized housing in their area.
EcoVillage residents were concerned about affordability, but attributed this challenge
more to the mainstream orientation than to the cohousing model, per se.
Many residents believed that the mainstream orientation increases the cost of all
aspects of EcoVillage living, including the infrastructure costs when developing, and the
green building and renewable energy technologies, for instance. This forces residents to
maintain one foot in mainstream culture so that they can make enough money to live
there. As Kelly stated:
It's also very... expensive to live here. So, that's sort of exclusionary. The main
culture here is middle-class people who work and then do this on the side...
There's just sort of a pipe dream of... being sustainable down the road, and it is
something to work towards, especially with the big-systems things, like... solar
energy and getting off the grid...
Harry also felt that EcoVillage life was expensive, and discussed the number of white-
collar workers living there. However, he accepted this condition as part of the
mainstream orientation:
People here are professional. I think one-fourth to one-third of the people who
live in this neighborhood have Ph.D.s ... We have several Cornell instructors who
live here. We have a lawyer. We have a naturopathic physician. So it's mainly a
professional community. Because of the house prices, you can't [be affordable] ...
People keep complaining because we want to be affordable ... When you come
right down to it, because by the time you get through... the infrastructure [we
can't be affordable].
174
Walker (2005) explains that housing affordability is indeed an issue. She explains that:
FROG homes that originally cost $90,000 to $150,000 in 1996 are selling at
$130,000 to $175,000 or more just eight years later. SONG homes, originally
intended to be even more affordable, now range from $120,000 to $300,000
(Walker 2005:210).
She articulates a hope that EcoVillage does not become an upper-middle-class and
wealthy enclave. Walker (2005) explains that finances not only affect housing prices, but
also the nonprofit and the financial resources put towards infrastructural improvements,
such as energy generation and on-site waste treatment.
In addition to requiring that the majority of residents maintain employment
outside of EcoVillage, this middle-class orientation and influencing the affordability of
purchasing and renting homes there, it also influences the ways in which EcoVillage is
organized and run. As Harvey (1989:184) sums up:
All manner of oppositional movements have come to grief as they stumble upon
the rock of money as the central and universal source of social power. It takes
money, we can conclude, to construct any alternative to the society predicated on
the community of money. This is the essential truth that all social movements
have to confront; otherwise it confronts and destroys them.
EcoVillage at Ithaca has confronted the power and necessity of money by maintaining a
mainstream existence in which the activities of residents and the EcoVillage itself can be
income-generating.
175
EcoVillage Is Nat Sustainable Enough
There is also a tension between the power this mainstream orientation gives
EcoVillage as an educational model of sustainable living, and the obstruction this
mainstream orientation erects, which prevents residents from pushing the envelope
towards more sustainable lifestyles. Lucy explained that EcoVillage is not making as
significant efforts towards greater sustainability as she would like:
Pushing the edge, like a person needs to be stretching and growing and that I
don't see happening as much here as I'd like. There are little pockets and there are
individuals and there are little initiatives... [but] if I had my own homestead, I'd
have my orchard planted, I'd have my solar panels, I'd be as off grid as I could.
Kelly expressed a similar sentiment:
It's not all that hard... I would want it to be a little more radical. Like 'yeah, ok,
we're gonna have chickens here,' ... just have chickens here, you know... We
could do so much so quickly so easily in the next year. This place could be, if we
wanted to, completely transformed into a hugely more sustainable place. But, for
right now, the people... that are mostly here and mostly in the leadership are more
into ... education and seem to be happy with... more in their comfort zone of
straddling the line between living like... 'we're not that far out there,' like 'you
can't really attack us so much because look we're kind of like middle-class
normal, regular people. We're doing this.' We're trying to tow that into this more
sustainable thing.
As Dawson (2006:33) explains " ...the goal of... EVI... is to create a model that will be
attractive to and replicable by mainstream, middle-class people, thus making some
compromises in terms of the purity of the experiment."
As hinted at in the above quotes, participants also expressed considerable
disappointment in the lack of a significant consciousness shift among residents. Many
176
believed that, among residents, there was not a significant commitment to sustainability
or to EcoVillage's mission. As Phebe lamented:
That is one of the big causes of dissonance for me here is ... even ... the structural
changes aren't enough for me, but the paradigm change is really lacking ... in a
holistic way here. Like I said, there are pockets of people who are more or less ...
But, ultimately I think, it's really lacking in significant consciousness shift here.
Elan expressed something, similar, emphasizing the diversity of commitment to the
creation of a sustainable culture that exists among residents:
... there isn't a strong coherence of vision here. Some people are really committed
to living sustainably as much as possible and influencing the planetary situation as
powerfully and systemically as possible. And there's other people who really like
it here because it's a nice place to live and they like their neighbors and they think
it's much better than the rest of most of the opportunities they could have had, but
they're not. .. pioneer activists. So, there's a broad range in here ... For some
people they're much more comfortable in their individualized, middle-class
background and other people are ready make decisive and profound changes.
This resulted in the perception that the efforts made by residents or EcoVillage as a
whole are not enough.
Making a Difference
Regardless of the tension that exists between the power this mainstream
orientation gives EcoVillage as an educational model of sustainable living, and the
obstruction this mainstream orientation erects that prevents residents from pushing the
envelope towards more sustainable lifestyles, many participants expressed the feeling that
as part of a mainstream educational model, the lifestyles of those living there are making
a difference, having an impact locally and globally. As residents expressed:
177
It helps me feel like I'm making a difference [that] this place gets a lot of
attention (Steve)
I think this very place is a statement and a model. So just being here and having
made the effort and to be here says something. It might just be, like I say, a step
on to something else, but it's definitely a step and a very positive one (Phebe).
However, most participants (other than those with careers specifically dedicated to the
sustainability education mission of EcoVillage) did not consider themselves political
activists.
Participants drew distinctions between what I term 'soft activists' and 'political
activists'. Soft activists are those who believe that the personal is political and that the
collective lifestyle choices of numerous individuals who are living out their values can
add up to significant social change. Political activists are those who are visionary,
pioneering, and public in their activism. Most of those at EcoVillage thought of
themselves as soft activists. Many felt that through EcoVillage's educational mission, its
outreach, its on-site workshops, its tours, its notoriety, and its openness to visitors, they
were performing a sort of 'soft activism'. These quotes illustrate how residents perceive
their living at EcoVillage as 'soft activism':
...Right now... I would say that living here feels like an... act of activism ..
And, the energy that I do put toward any of my committee commitments .
around trying to support the mission here. It certainly isn't the ... bolder, more
public activism... of moving beyond (Laura) .
.. .my activism is much quieter now and it's much more about. .. living
alternatively (Laura) .
... I have basically elected a kind of soft approach to changing the system: the
show a better way approach to changing the system rather than the go out there
178
and try to get people to wake up and smell the coffee and the whole political
. scene (Steve).
... that feels like a type of activist, but it's not like you're out there in the trenches
(Lucy).
The vast majority of the residents I interviewed relied almost entirely on their everyday
lifestyles to make a difference in the world, both in terms of demonstrating another way
of living to others, and in terms of reducing the impacts of their material consumption
choices. As a result of this lack of political activism among residents, one could argue
that EcoVillage at Ithaca is simply a comfortable lifestyle choice for residents.
However, one could also argue that political activism is not necessary in
impacting others by making significant changes in one's own life. Many residents believe
that the small changes in their own lives can add up to have a cumulative effect that
results in large-scale transformation of social structures. As Kirby (2004) argues, in the
case of EcoVillage:
The adoption of practices that aim to reduce their ecological footprint are intended
to address global inequalities through ensuring that the products of exploitation
and repressive practices find no place in their domestic environment.
Steve explained that he believes the most promising avenue to having a broad impact is
to make changes as a member of a group:
... somehow if feels more like its making more of a difference to be part of a
group that's doing it. Partly because it's more people and I think also because it's
more visible.
I'm having most of my effect in a relatively small radius around me, but I'm
hoping that will ... make a broader difference... It might not be significant. .. How
much difference can one person make?
179
The majority of residents felt that individual changes made in isolation would certainly
not have the impact that would individual changes made as a group that is highly visible
and working to influence others.
Bang (2005) notes, the relationship between EcoVillage and the broader world is
fundamental. There are some communities that are completely oriented towards their own
insulated and protected self-sufficiency; there are other communities that are oriented
towards creating a comfortable lifestyle for themselves.
But it is here that we are developing the techniques and technologies which will
eventually give birth to a truly sustainable society, caring for the environment and
the people. For an ecovillage to have relevance into the future - and for me to
want to co-operate with it and feel that we share some worldview - it is essential
that it be outward-looking and open. To develop a training Center is one way to
express this in concrete terms. Inviting people to join for longer or shorter
periods, to learn alongside each other and then go back into the larger social
context with new ideas and techniques ... If we only build ecovillages that are an
escape from the problems of the larger society, we will have achieved very little.
Only by engaging with the society around us, inviting people into us, can we hope
to achieve change in the larger society (Bang 2005:36).
It is to this concept of EcoVillage's impact on the rest of the world that I will tum in the
concluding chapter of this document.
- --- ----------------------------
180
CHAPTER VII
CONCLUSIONS
The socioeconomic and environmental solutions to our present crisis do not lie in
each person trying harder than before as lone individuals or isolated nuclear
families. They lie in our working more effectively with each other in a system of
cooperative enterprise by sharing property, resources, responsibilities, and
purposes - that is the essence of ecological living and the way toward a
sustainable society. As the old American Dream collapses, we can continue to be
lone individuals, compromising our dreams, our lives" and our environment, or
we can make a bold declaration ofwhat happiness, family life, good
neighborhoods, and a healthy planet and world society really mean to us. To meet
those desires, we must learn how to rebuild America with community as a
sustainable foundation (Norwood and Smith 1995:47).
Patterns of material consumption in the United States, structured by capitalism,
have associated economic, environmental, social, cultural, and personal impacts.
Capitalism as a global system results not only in environmental degradation, increased
inequality, increased povetty, increasingly concentrated and differentially applied power,
but also social, cultural, and personal costs. These costs include impacts on consumers,
such as commodity fetishism, alienation, and materialism, (i.e. the dismissal of the
impacts of the consumption choices made in search of personal identity and fulfillment).
In fact, consumers' ability to derive satisfaction from consumption actually decreases
with each incremental increase in consumption. Understanding these negative
consequences of the way we organize ourselves socially under the current capitalist
political economic system allows for an understanding of the motivations people have
181
for, and the importance of, the myriad attempts at multiple scales to disrupt it, resist it,
and to find alternatives.
Given these myriad impacts that result from our current global political economy,
Meltzer (2005:164) argues that "...the vast majority of human beings will either choose,
learn, or be forced to live radically differently in order to survive with others in a
civilised manner." This new manner of living will include greater local self-sufficiency
and reduced demand for material resources (Meltzer 2005). Hayden (2002:77) also holds
that "we need to reconstruct the social, economic, and spatial bases of our beliefs about
individual happiness, solid family life, and decent neighborhoods." She further argues
that:
Between the giant corporations and the tiny houses, environmental alternatives
require new social, economic, and architectural innovations as well as new,
energy-saving inventions. As environmentalists continue to develop a very
effective accounting of the wasteful, destructive patterns of present resource use,
reconceptualization of the private home will lead to more concern for
neighborhood. Neighborhood scale may be the most productive issue for green
architecture in the decades ahead (Hayden 2002:67).
Meltzer (2005) also believes that the neighborhood is the most effective scale at which to
implement this new manner of living. He argues that this manner of living is more
feasible and more fulfilling if done in collaboration with others. Further, he holds that
cohousing is a demonstration of how to implement this new manner of living, to live with
reduced demand for material resources, and to gain greater life satisfaction from means
other than consumerism, without a reduction in quality of life (Meltzer 2005).
182
This research is an exploration of the degree to which EcoVillage at Ithaca can be
understood as a space of resistance and EcoVillage residents can be understood as
activists. This investigation is important because it helps to illuminate whether
EcoVillage at Ithaca is simply a comfortable lifestyle choice for residents, or has
transformative impacts beyond the EcoVillage itself.
My research questions have been:
1. To what degree is EcoVillage at Ithaca a space of resistance to the ills of
capitalism and consumer culture?
2. To what degree do the residents of EcoVillage at Ithaca interpret their choice to
live there as an activist act of resistance?
3. How are these different scales of resistance, at the EcoVillage and resident level,
related?
These questions revolve around the degree to which domestic (i.e. home-based)
resistance, performed in organized collaboration with others, poses a solution to the ills
of certain broad~scale structures, processes, and dynamics. Human behaviors, at both
individual and collective scales are an outcome of human agency. Behavior can be
understood as operating within social structures, but scholars argue about the ability of
this behavior to impact those structures.
Some scholars view behavior as an outcome of the structures, processes, and
dynamics of social organization; others view behavior as a force which shapes these
183
structures, processes, and dynamics. I adopt the perspective of Giddens, whose Theory of
Structuration, as paraphrased by Graham (2005:24), explains that "human agents are seen
both as operating within a specific social context (structure) and as active in determining
the precise outcome of their social interactions." As Winchester (2005) explains, the
academic examination of the interactions between human agency/behavior and broad-
scale structures, processes, and dynamics, is best pursued using qualitative methods.
Further, qualitative methods are particularly well-suited to investigating resistance to
large-scale structures, processes, and dynamics. Winchester (2005:5) states that one of
the two questions that can be answered with qualitative methods is: "what is the shape of
societal structures and by what processes are they constructed, maintained, legitimized,
and resisted?" (Winchester 2005:5)
Resistance
The relationship between capitalism and the built environment is deeply ingrained
in both the physical and cultural landscapes of America. Resisting either capitalism or the
structure of the built environment (which is supportive of capitalism and of material
consumption) requires that the false link between consumerism and well-being, which is
part of the'American Dream', be confronted and severed (Harvey 1989). Because of the
myriad personal, social, economic, and environmental impacts of material consumption,
as structured by capitalism, resistance to the ills of capitalism are afoot.
184
This resistance to the ills of capitalism is by no means futile. Sharp et al.
(2000: 12) note that" ... certain readings of Foucault can convey the impression of a
dominating power so diffuse, so unspecific and yet so all-encompassingly effective that
resistance against it is not only futile but impossible to achieve." In contrast, Sharp et al.
(2000:20) argue that understanding the ways in which power relationships exist at
multiple scales and interact with each other " ... does not necessarily commit us to a kind
of intellectual and political quietism: a shrug of the shoulders in the face of power's
apparent all-pervasiveness, elusiveness and complexity." This sentiment relates to
Giddens' Theory of Structuration, discussed above, which describes that although large-
scale processes, structures, and dynamics do influence the parameters of social
interactions, humans are able to influence how those interactions play out within those
parameters.
Norwood and Smith (1995:37) similarly argue that:
Although many people have felt powerless with little control over society's
problems, it is time to tum the process around by demonstrating that the tools are
available for making positive change... we need to honestly look at our own daily
living practices and the 'system.'
Again, we see the importance of keeping individual, everyday practices as well as large-
scale structures, processes, and dynamics in mind when making efforts to alter societal
problems. Harvey (1989) also forwards the importance of being attentive to .the multiple
scales of social existence. He argues that:
.. .it is just as geographically unprincipled and naIve to ignore the qualities of a
global process as it is to ignore the distinctive qualities of place and community.
185
Practices fashioned only in the latter terms define a politics of adaptation and
submission, rather than of active resistance and socialist transformation" (Harvey
1989:276).
Pile (1997:4) urges readers to keep in mind "that, as much as resistance seeks to
undermine or throw off control over exterior spaces, the interior world is also colonised
by hegemonic norms and values."
Resistance, Space, and Place
Resistance has been important theoretical component in my analysis of
EcoVillage at Ithaca, and particularly the geographies of resistance. Because power takes
place across space and in places, the entanglements of power are spatial, and thus,
geographical (Sharp et al. 2000). This understanding illuminates the importance of being
attentive to the ways in which resistance plays out through space and in place. It also
offers resistance movements a leverage point: place. Specific places can be used as a
form of resistance against the ills of capitalism and consumer culture (Cresswell 2004;
Pickerill and Chatterton 2006).
Regardless of the particular ways in which social relationships and the act of
place-making interact to produce these particular places, they undoubtedly demonstrate
an alternative approach to social organization. However, this understanding does not
completely explain the degree to which these particular places are spaces of active
resistance to the ills of consumer culture.
186
Pile and Keith (1997) examine the ways in which those attempting to resist fmms
of domination can exercise power through the reorganization of material space. The
authors are concerned particularly with the ways in which those resisting forms of
domination can exercise power through the reorganization of material space. These
authors and those exploring 'autonomous geographies' are interested in the creation of
new spaces in which people execute resistance through their everyday practices, creating
new styles of social organization (Pickerill and Chatterton 2006; Pile and Keith 1997).
There are many avenues and strategies through which change can be enacted,
which exist at multiple scales. Pickerill and Chatterton (2006), with their theory of
'autonomous geographies', argue that among the myriad avenues, strategies, and scales
through which dominating power can be resisted, one foundational strategy that operates
at the scale of the individual is this everyday resistance. The 'everyday places' being
challenged are those that are sculpted by capitalism and globalization.
Sharp et al. (2000:26) argue for " ... the possibilities for resistant spatialities full
of new possibilities for social existence." Following other scholars theorizing about
resistance l , Sharp et al. (2000:26) hold that:
... there is no hope for revolutionary politics and activism having any effect
without there being a change in the spatial organisation of society: the material
and discursive spaces that make up modem life, the spatial connections that exist
between, and creating, individual and groups, therefore need to be altered.
I See Foucault (1978, 1984) and Lefebvre (1991)
187
Dominant spatial organisations have to be transcended in the creation of both new
subjectivities and new possibilities for relations of power.
As Pile (1997:30) explains, this transcendence of the dominant spatial organization of
society results in " ... throwing away imposed maps, unfolding new spaces, making
alternative places, creating new geographies of resistance." Pile (1997) emphasizes the
ways in which resistance results in the occupation, deployment, and creation of new
spaces. Pickerill and Chatterton (2006:742) share this focus on the creation of new
spaces, arguing that:
Given that there is no place outside the reach of capitalist relations, 'new places'
have to be created from within, through an attempt - however complicated,
contested and fractured - to alter and challenge everyday places.
Pile (1997: 17) again reminds us that we cannot focus only on the reworking of "external
physical space, but must also engage the colonised spaces of people's inner worlds."
Adair and Howell (1992:39) specify this focus on the types of new spaces that
must be created, arguing that social change work must focus on "the reclaiming of
community [which] is the only hope and promise for healing out society." Similarly,
Katznelson (1981), Harvey (1996), and Cresswell (2004) all argue that community and
the place of residence are important loci of resistance. Katznelson (1981: 193) argues that
today, "... a remarkable consensus of activists is once again turning to the place of
residence rather than the place of work as the main locus of insurgent activity... " and
"radical change."
188
Pile (1997:12) argues that previous analyses ofresistance2, " ... tend only to
consider political those actions which are public and/or overt and/or collective - thus
rendering private and/or covert and/or personal forms of resistance, which are not
considered 'Political' or part of 'The Movement', invisible." The study of everyday
resistance makes visible the private and personal forms of resistance, such as those that
are being performed by from the place of residence and community. This is also the case
with the forms of resistance being performed by the individual residents of EcoVillage,
albeit collectively. This is a point to which I will return later in this chapter.
EcoVillage at Ithaca as a Model
In my qualitative research, I found that residents believe EcoVillage at Ithaca to
be an educational model for mainstream America, demonstrating an alternative to
consumer culture and an alternative way to organize socially, economically, and
environmentally. Many voiced that this model is of critical important in the face of what
they saw as a need for a new societal paradigm (whether chosen or imposed). Participants
understood EcoVillage's mission to implicitly include an educational component, as well
as the articulation of a positive vision for social change. In addition, participants
understood that EcoVillage was created with the intent of modeling sustainable culture to
middle-class, mainstream Americans. Although many had critiques of targeting this
mainstream audience, many believed that this is a strategic means to affecting change
within a population that is required to change the most. EcoVillage is demonstrating a
2 See Harvey (1993a, 1993b) and Castells (1983)
189
way to continue a middle-class existence, while reducing environmental impacts and
deepening social relationships.
There is agreement among many scholars that ecovillages and cohousing
demonstrate the success of the synergy of multiple sustainability components and that
ecovillages and cohousing are appealing to mainstream society (Jackson and Jackson
2002; Jackson and Svensson 2002; Meltzer 2000). As Meltzer (2000:130) explains, in the
case of cohousing:
Cohousing will not, in itself, be able to turn environmental degradation around.
Yet its lessons have great relevance for mainstream society. Cohousing
demonstrates the importance of 'community' to environmental and social
sustainability... Cohousing demonstrates the means by which people might live in
civilized and enduring propinquity within a mainstream context.. .. For
environmental degradation to be addressed in a meaningful way, the conserver
lifestyle must be compatible with a mainstream orientation. Such is the potential
demonstrated by the cohousing model.
In the case of ecovillages, Jackson and Jackson (2002) and Jackson and Svensson (2002)
believe that ecovillages fulfill a need for full-scale models that demonstrate to
mainstream society how the different elements of sustainability can be synchronized and
how these models can be replicated. Jackson and Jackson (2002: 130) argue that as an
alternative to economic globalization, "the ecovillage movement has a historic
significance in... directly addressing the threefold need for resourcing people and their
living environment, and providing concrete examples of alternatives to commercial
globalization."
190
Jackson (in Jackson and Svensson 2002:98) argues that education and outreach
are critical functions of ecovillage demonstration models:
Teaching and communication are lifelines for ecovillages ... Visiting or following
a course at an ecovillage is an experience which provides people with knowledge
of sustainability principles through immersion in the ecovillage lifestyle. It has the
power to change people's lives.
Because of this fact that many ecovillages deliberately model a more sustainable way of
life through outreach and education, " ... these communities are powerful activist
models ... " (Bonnette 2004:5). In addition, Kirby (2004) believes that by way of "the
construction and demonstration of a single ideal model that could be duplicated
throughout the country," ecovillages, and EcoVillage at Ithaca in particular, can be
thought of as "...a mode of protest that was novel, non-violent and total in scope." This
role of EcoVillage as an activist model and a form of protest will be discussed in greater
detail in the pages that follow.
Also of import is the feeling among scholars that cohousing and ecovillages
provide this model during a time when it is much-needed (Bonnette 2005; Dawson 2006;
Jackson and Jackson 2002; Meltzer 2005). For instance, Meltzer (2005) believes that the
community-scale organization of cohousing will be its most significant contribution to
future societies. In discussing ecovillages, Dawson (2006:77) states that" ... the types of
applied research, demonstration and training that ecovillages are engaged in are precisely
those that will be needed to navigate the rough waters ahead."
191
Bonnette (2005:5) holds that in the face of an impending new societal paradigm,
ecovillages are a " ...physical manifestation of a world-scale paradigm shift beginning in
local communities... " Jackson and Jackson (2002: 130) similarly argue that:
The ecovillage movement is ... a reaction to the crisis [of commercialism], but in a
positive and constructive mode, based on personal action in changing lifestyles in
keeping with the longer term needs of a global society in ecological balance. They
may well be the models for the rest of the world to tum to, when the reality of the
current crisis is finally acknowledged.
According to Dawson (2006:77) regardless of whether people believe that society as we
know it is collapsing or simply believe that future societal organization will require
people to be more self-sufficient, it will be critical to ensure that" ... the wisdom, the
models and the technologies developed within ecovillages are mobilised for the wider
public good."
However, no scholar argues that ecovillages are a panacea for all global societal,
environmental, and economic problems, and some express strong critiques of ecovillages
and cohousing (Bonnette 2004; McCamant and Durrett 1994). As Bonnette (2004:8) tells,
she is " ...not convinced that ecovillages are the only way into a sustainable future."
McCamant and Durrett (1994) elaborate on this sentiment. For instance, the authors
express concern that cohousing could become nothing more than a socially-based gated-
community. They state that:
...cohousing might further emphasize already existing American patterns of
residential and social segregation. Certainly, cohousing could be applied as just
another variation on the walled-in, planned communities of the affluent; but such
exclusivity runs counter to one of the primary reasons for the concept's appeal -
192
the desire for an integrated residential environment (McCamant and Durrett
1994:202).
In addition, they argue that given their small size, " ... cohousing developments have
limited impact on larger urban and regional design issues (McCamant and Durrett
1994:279). They do make valuable contributions to livable settlement design, including
the integration of employment and housing, better transportation options, and community
cohesion. They offer one solution, but not the only one (McCamant and Durrett 1994).
Community and Behavior
In my research, I found that the general experience of residents was that
EcoVillage at Ithaca facilitates the creation ofa sustainable culture and residents reported
having more sustainable lifestyles as a result of living at EcoVillage. In addition, many
participants expressed that there was continualleaming amongst EcoVillagers about how
to make a more sustainable life. In large part because of the resource sharing, many
residents expressed that they had significantly reduced their material consumption as a
result of living at EcoVillage.
Scholars have also examined this relationship between community and pro-
environmental behavior. As Meltzer (2005:152) argues, " ... cohousing has demonstrated
a physical instrumental and social context within which pro-environmental attitudes and
behaviour are nurtured and sustained." He argues that cohousing architecture and site
design, as well as the purpose behind cohousing, promote interaction among residents.
193
The familiarity that results promotes awareness-raising, the spread of knowledge, as well
as sharing and support. The empowerment that residents experience creates a sense of
control over their lives, and allows residents to cultivate their motivation to address
environmental issues and reduce their consumerism (Meltzer 2005).
The importance of the role the collaborative element of cohousing plays in
fostering more pro-environmental behavior cannot be understated. As Norwood and
Smith (1995:37) explain:
Working alone as individuals will not take us far enough along the road to
responsible ecological living and the rebuilding of community in America. Efforts
to this end are often thwarted because we lack the collective power of
commitment to a common purpose. Such as change requires personal
empowerment through a social support base, whether it be an extended family or
a larger community of people.
In fact, Meltzer (2005: 167) believes that community collaboration is of such importance
that in working to facilitates social change, community building...
.. .should precede or at least accompany structural measures. Rather than the
allocation of services, such a 'social planning' process should begin by
encouraging greater interaction between people in everyday life.
A strong sense of community allows people to tackle issues that might seem
insurmountable in isolation. Meltzer (2005:171) argues that community sharing and
collaboration has the potential to " ...deliver a culture far more benign, sustainable and
satisfying of basic human needs than any in human history."
- ._--------------------------------------
194
Panelli and Welch (2005: 1609) formulate a conception of community that is
based on the sharing of everyday activities; "that such communities may be articulated in
both social and place-specific forms through everyday patterns of life." Community is
continually reformed through the negotiation by individuals of their experience of
individuality and difference. It is through contact (potential and actual) with other people
via the repetition of everyday activities that individuals formulate their sense of
community. People feel most connected to their communities when they are perceived
(by others and themselves) to be supporting the group (Panelli and Welch 2005).
Residents of EcoVillage not only form and re-form their sense of community
though their formal and informal interactions on an everyday basis. Residents also form
and re-form their sense of community through the process of physical community-
building and maintenance. Because of this strong sense of community, and the support
structures it includes, residents are able to support each other in participating in more
sustainable behavior. It is precisely the everyday nature of this social process that defines
it as resistance. As Pile (1997: 14) argues, ".. .it is not so much the act - and its structural
determinations - that defines resistance... but the meanings that social actions take on in
the practice of everyday life."
Spatial Change Alone Cannot Make Social Change
As mentioned above, responses to the social and environmental consequences of
the suburban and urban built environment, as well as responses to the built environment
195
itself, are many. There are suburban and urban design strategies that respond to these
consequences and attempt to make places of meaning that are more conducive to social,
economic, and environmental sustainability. These responses include such design
strategies as cohousing, ecovillages, green building slow growth3, and New Urbanism4,
for instance. Some authors argue, as does Kunstler (1993:112) that " ... to transition to a
saner way of living ...will certainly require a transformation of the physical setting for our
civilization, a remaking of the places where we live and work."
It is important to keep in mind, however, that a narrow focus on architecture as a
means to solving society's social and economic ills is insufficient. Jacobs (1961:113)
argues that:
...other things may be more important than housing, however, and... there is not a
direct, simple relationship between good housing and good behavior ...When we
try to justify good shelter instead on the pretentious grounds that it will work
social or family miracles, we fool ourselves.
Hayden (2002:222) asserts the same critique: that "architecture cannot bring about
revolution; spatial change by itself can't effect social change." Of course, changing the
3 One response has been the 'slow growth' movement ofthe 1980s by homeowners, environmentalists,
planners, and others who seek to manage growth and at the same time incorporate 'green building' and
mixed use (blending residential and commercial space) while promoting pedestrian traffic and public transit
and discouraging vehicular traffic. The Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), also a component of the 'slow
growth' movement, is a mechanism employed" ... to slow scattered growth, bound it, and shape it"
(Hayden 2003, p.195).
4 Architects adopting New Urbanism strive to " ...e!<iborate a cozy past, where old-fashioned family life is
honored in neo-traditional houses gathered into beautifully landscaped enclaves" that promote community
interaction (Hayden 2003, p.201). Seaside, Florida, designed by Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk and Andres Duany
(co-authors of Suburban Nation in 2000) and used as the set in the film The Truman Show (starring Jim
Carrey), is a splendid example of this architectural style.
196
built environment, or making a new one, does require changes in both architecture and
economics, but changing the built environment, in itself, cam10t revolutionize society.
Economic, social, environmental, and architectural restructuring are all needed in
conjunction to meaningfully remodel our built environment.
In essence, in Jacob's and Hayden's views, although we want to look towards
architectural and plam1ing solutions to our social ills and economic needs, social change
must precede any meaningful and impacting architectural restructuring. Americans
arguably need to redefine the 'American dream' to include meaningful work and
relationships, and different conceptions of success and individuality. Architectural
solutions fall short because the satisfaction Americans seek from their single-family
dwellings is of a type that caooot be met by architects or plaooers.
In addition to misplaced reliance on architecture to catalyze social revolution,
many of the responses to the ills of capitalism and consumer culture, (including
cohousing, ecovillages, green building slow growth, and New Urbanism) are all still
reliant on growth. And as American consumerism and consumption of resources continue
to increase and sprawl marches on, these responses are unable to facilitate sweeping
change. Hayden (2003:229) tells us that:
...new designs alone cannot redeem a throwaway culture organized around
obsolescence and the continual consumption of undeveloped land and new
products. Housing is tied to the political economy. Better architecture camlOt, in
itself, change the larger patterns of social and economic exploitation developed by
growth machines which profit from round after round of fringe development.
197
In essence, if the social and economic underpinnings of housing design are flawed or
inappropriate, no amount of architectural innovation will remedy this.
It is argued that even if the social, economic, and environmental underpinnings of
housing and community design are appropriate, the architecture in itself will not facilitate
sweeping change. As Meltzer (2005: 15) states:
The matter of whether design per se can help build a sense of belonging or a sense
of community is extremely vexed. There is a long and much discredited history of
architectural determinism which might once have held that strangers moving into
an appropriately designed community would likely cohere as a community.
On the other hand, in the case of cohousing, "the involvement of prospective residents in
the design and development of cohousing... builds social cohesion and commitment
within the group before inhabitation of the project" (Meltzer 2005: 15). Byway of this
participation, a sense of community is created in cohousing that does have the capability
of changing residents' behaviors.
However, a sense of community that does not facilitate pro-environmental
behavior and reduced material consumption will not alone offer resistance to the ills of
consumer culture. Hayden (2003:229) holds that:
... the problems of excessive fringe suburban development require more than
better design...To tum patterns of excessive consumption into patterns of wise
use that can be sustained forever would require severe limits on land use, energy
use, and new construction.
198
At EcoVillage at Ithaca, the sense of community derived from participation in the design
process that facilitates pro-environmental behavior combines with a dedication to the
reduction of the ecological footprint of residents. It is with this combination of factors
that design can influence sweeping societal change.
Material Consumption at EcoVillage
Although the general belief among residents was that EcoVillage facilitates the
creation of a sustainable culture and an accompanying reduction in material consumption,
several participants expressed tensions that exist between the levels of material
consumption of various residents. Some felt that other residents were still consuming at
very high levels and others felt that they themselves were still consuming at higher levels
than they would like.
This tension surrounding levels of material consumption implicates EcoVillage's
influence as a mainstream model, and hence its power as a space of resistance. If
residents are not significantly reducing their levels of materials consumption beyond that
which is easily facilitated by the physical design of the ecovillage, this brings into
question the degree to which EcoVillage at Ithaca is creating a sustainable culture. And, it
brings into question the degree to which EcoVillage at Ithaca is contesting the ills of
consumer culture.
199
Consumption as Resistance?
When considering resistance, it is important to keep in mind that "certain
resistances are themselves a reproduction or extension of dominating power rather than a
challenge to it" (Sharp et al. 2000:23). Because resistance is a form of power itself
(Cresswell 2000), Gupta and Ferguson (1997: 18) argue that resistances" ... are always
capable of being tactically appropriated and redeployed within another strategy of
power... " Resistance is capable of " ...reconfirming or strengthening existing identities,
ironically contributing to maintaining the status quo" (Gupta and Ferguson 1997: 19).
Sharp et al. (2000:22) quote Haynes and Prakash (1991) to illustrate that
"...moments of resistance are also constantly conditioned but the structures of dominating
social and political power, hinting that resisting power is constantly in danger of
replicating the structures of the dominant." Further, the authors explain that:
Resistance in one place my therefore be complicit with domination in another,
which begins to introduce the entangled geographies about which we shall speak
further. To reflect more abstractly on this issue, we would propose that
individuals and groups are commonly subject to contradictory consciousness,
supporting some aspect of the social order while opposing others. As Mitchell
(1990i notes, even resistance practices are partially conditioned by hegemony,
since their logics of enactment accept, at least in part, the larger structures of
political and economy power: there is no autonomous consciousness or
completely self-determining subject who thoroughly escapes the effects of
hegemonic practices (Sharp et al. 2000:24).
5 Mitchell, T. 1990. "Everyday metaphors of power." Theory and Society 19:545-577.
200
Cresswell (2000:260) argues much the same thing, that "it could equally be the case that
the vast majority of choices we make are far from resistant by rather serve to reproduce
existing forms of domination. "
Along with this blurring of the lines between resistance and domination comes an
issue that complicates this analysis. It could very well be the case that the form of
domination being reproduced in resistance is consumer culture. This can easily be seen in
green consumerism and the green building industry, for instance. In these cases, material
items are still being consumed, but these items are shrouded by a veil of 'green.' As
Cresswell (2000:256) argues:
People making choices, consuming, resisting. These will be seen as evidence for
everyday heroism and the analysis will stop there.
It is indeed possible that the residents of EcoVillage at Ithaca participate in this
consumption disguised as resistance. It is possible that EcoVillage is not challenging
consumer culture, but rather facilitating only a different form of consumerism that still
rests comfortable within the global capitalist political economy and consumer culture.
Jackson (in Jackson and Svensson 2002: 129) argues that:
To resist it [modem consumerism], one needs knowledge about its true
implications, and the will to make a conscious choice and stick with it through
hard times. One also needs some strong political arguments ...
Many residents of EcoVillage are aware of the complex implication of their consumption
choices, have made deliberate choices to reduce the social, economic, and environmental
201
impacts of their material consumption, and have strong political arguments behind their
doing so. In addition, because these actions are, at least to some degree, collaborative and
promoted as an educational model, I argue that residents are participating in a form of
resistance, however little the actual impact.
Mainstream Orientation
There is also a tension between the power its mainstream orientation gives.
EcoVillage as an educational model of sustainable living, and the obstruction this
mainstream orientation erects, which prevents residents from pushing the envelope
towards more sustainable lifestyles. For instance, the majority of residents must maintain
a mainstream existence with mainstream employment in order to afford to live at
EcoVillage. This mainstream employment reduces the amount of time and energy
residents can dedicate to on-site sustainability improvements and increases residents'
transportation requirements, for example. Again, this challenges EcoVillage's role as a
space of resistance.
Activism
Regardless of the tension surrounding EcoVillage's mainstream orientation, many
participants expressed the feeling that as part of a mainstream educational model, the
lifestyles of those living there are making a difference, having an impact locally and
globally. However, most participants did not consider themselves political activists.
Participants drew distinctions between what I term 'soft activists', those who believe that
202
the collective lifestyle choices of numerous individuals can add up to significant social
change, and 'political activists', those who are visionary, pioneering, and public in their
activism. Most of those at EcoVillage thought of themselves as soft activists.
Kirby (2004) also makes this distinction between political and soft activism,
which he terms " ... active and domestic protest," arguing that soft or domestic activism is
not perceived to be as dangerously threatening to the status quo. This lack of perceived
threat may make mainstream Americans more receptive to the ecovillage and cohousing
models. As Kirby (2004) explains: "...protest, whether a demonstration in the context of
specific events or domestic protest in the form of the creation of alternative spaces,
represents the most radical form of attitudes that are already beginning to find acceptance
in the general population."
In general, EcoVillage residents felt that although they may not be political
activists (or active protesters), they are making a difference that has impacts beyond
EcoVillage itself. Many felt that through EcoVillage's educational mission, its outreach,
its on-site workshops, its tours, its notoriety, and its openness to visitors, they were
performing a sort of soft activism. As Kirby (2004) articulates:
Whether on religious, political or social grounds, all community builders believed
that social change could best be achieved through the construction and
demonstration of a single ideal model that could be duplicated throughout the
country..
203
This is " ...a mode of protest that was novel, non-violent and total in scope" (Kirby 2004).
With these statements, Kirby identifies the construction of a community that functions as
a replicable model as a form of protest.
EcoVillage at Ithaca as. a Space ofResistance
The vast majority of the residents I interviewed relied almost entirely on their
everyday lifestyles to make a difference in the world, both in terms of demonstrating
another way of living to others, and in terms of reducing the impacts of their material
consumption choices. It is this impact beyond the lives of the individual residents that I
argue allows EcoVillage to be understood as a space of resistance to the ills of consumer
culture rather than simply a comfortable lifestyle choice for residents.
However, as a result of this lack of political activism among residents, one could
argue that EcoVillage at Ithaca is simply a comfortable lifestyle choice for residents.
Some residents are not completely committed to the mission, some have not significantly
reduced their levels of material consumption, and some are living at EcoVillage simply
because of the community and the quality of life. If residents are not significantly
reducing their levels of materials consumption beyond that which is easily facilitated by
the physical design of the ecovillage, this brings into question the degree to which
EcoVillage at Ithaca is creating a sustainable culture. One could also argue that without
complete commitment by all residents to the creation of a demonstration model of
sustainable culture, EcoVillage cannot be considered an activist space. This implicates
204
EcoVillage's influence as a mainstream model, and hence its power as a space of
resistance. And, it brings into question the degree to which EcoVillage at Ithaca is
contesting the ills of consumer culture.
However, I argue that EcoVillage residents are certainly living in a place that is
designed specifically to model a way of living that represents an alternative to
consumerism and capitalist culture. Indeed, their everyday lives are a part of this model.
Further, because of its outreach activities and educational mission, EcoVillage at Ithaca is
having an impact beyond the lives of the individual residents.
The scope of this impact is not unproblematic, however. EcoVillage's educational
outreach is received by a niche audience that is primarily made of up the educated
middle-class and/or those already involved in the ecovillage movement or with
cohousing. This is evidenced by the fact that EcoVillage's outreach is achieved primarily
through three avenues: conventional education and academia, media recognition
(mainstream and alternative), and participation in the ecovillage movement, such as
involvement with the Global Ecovillage Network (GEN). Although the model EcoVillage
presents is relevant, because of the currently limited scope of its impact, it may not be
significant. This question of the impact of EcoVillage on various audiences is in need of
further investigation. Nonetheless, although the potential impact of EcoVillage is far
greater than its current scope, it likely does have an impact. It is this impact beyond the
lives of the individual residents that I argue allows EcoVillage to be understood as a
205
space of resistance to the ills of consumer culture rather than simply a comfortable
lifestyle choice for residents.
I have investigated this particular case in which an alternative place of residence
has been created as a site of contestation and as a model of another way to live. Pile
(1997:12) argues that many past analyses ...
.. .of oppositional politics tend only to consider political those actions which are
public and/or overt and/or collective - thus rendering private and/or covert and/or
personal forms of resistance, which are not considered 'Political' or part of 'The
Movement', invisible...
This analysis of EcoVillage at Ithaca makes visible exactly this type of 'personal',
domestic resistance that Pile (1997) believes needs to be illuminated. In reaction to the
tribulations of consumerism, the residents of EcoVillage at Ithaca have built a community
in which they can focus on deepening social connections and fostering sustainability.
Although not directly resisting capitalism per se, EcoVillage is a place deliberately
created to demonstrate an alternative to consumer culture, and to provide a venue for
residents to eschew some of the ills of capitalism.
As mentioned above, Pile and Keith (1997), in their explorations of 'geographies
of resistance', and Pickerill and Chatterton (2006), in their explorations of 'autonomous
geographies,' are interested in the creation of new spaces in which people execute
resistance through their everyday practices, creating new styles of social organization.
Pickerill and Chatterton (2006:731) identify ecovillages as " .. .localized autonomous
206
spaces and alternative processes" through which activism is manifested. Kirby (2004)
also identifies the ecovillage as an alternative everyday space that represents an
alternative to consumer society. He states that the ecovillage uses "the spatial
arrangements of its built form" to promote connections among residents and their
environment (Kirby 2004). Further, Kirby (2004) argues that part of the creation of a
space of resistance is the exclusion of the dominant American culture in support of the
development of a new societal and environmental paradigm. He states that "an emphasis
on supporting sustainable practices such as organic agriculture, bioregional initiatives,
recycling, and the practice of voluntary simplicity, flies in the face of the consumptive
and globalizing force represented by the dominant social mode" (Kirby 2004).
Kirby (2003 :327) states that residents of EcoVillage" ... see themselves as
progenitors of cultural change". As Walker (2005: 167) explains, she conceives of
EcoVillage's education and outreach activities ...
.. .as a series of concentric circles. The innermost circle consists of our intensive
one-on-one work with individual students (interns, graduate students, and those
doing independent studies). The next circle consists of the semester-long courses
that we teach at EcoVillage. Tours and conferences make up the next circle,
followed by additional circles having to do with media coverage and other
outreach.
Walker (2005) and EcoVillage residents consider each of these concentric circles an
avenue to create change. As a result, each of these concentric circles can be considered
everyday spaces of resistance.
207
In addition to the outer circles mentioned by Walker (2005), there is also
EcoVillage at Ithaca's membership in the Global Ecovillage Network (GEN). Through
participation in this institutionalization of the ecovillage movement, EcoVillage
participates in what Foucault (1978:96) calls " ... the strategic codification of these points
of resistance that makes revolution possible... " Norberg and Hodge (2002: 175) argue
that the growth of resistance is " ... strengthened by thousands of grassroots initiatives that
are reweaving the fabric of community, restoring ecosystems and rebuilding local
economies, of which ecovillages are some of the most holistic and therefore important."
Social Movements
Leslie Sklair (1995:352) in "Social Movements and Global Capital," argues that
in order to combat global capitalism, social movements must look towards" ...disrupting
capitalism locally and finding ways of globalizing these disruptions, while seizing the
opportunities to transform it that democracy provides." In the context of labor
movements and 'New Social Movements' (NSMs; which are grassroots-based), Sklair
(1995:343) argues that because both operate within the politics of scale, their only chance
for success "is by disrupting the local agencies with which they come into direct contact
in their daily lives, rather than the more global institutions whose interests these agencies
are serving directly, or, more often, indirectly... " The author asserts the power of local
action to illustrate its necessity in the success of efforts to modify the current social and
economic order. Sklair (1995:344) advances his own Global Systems Theory, which
focuses on "transnational practices" which " ...operate in three spheres, the economic
208
[institutionalized in MNCs] , the political [exemplified by the transnational capitalist
class], and the cultural-ideological [embodied in consumerism]." Sklair (1995)contends
that because the accomplishments of global capitalism have relied on operation in all
three spheres, success of social movements also relies on operation in all of these three
spheres. In sum, rather than looking towards only disrupting global institutions, social
movements may have more success with local disruptions involving the functions of
daily life.
Katznelson (1981) argues something similar. He forwards the understanding that
" ...community-based strategies for social change in the United States cannot succeed
unless they pay attention to the country's special pattern of class formation" (Katznelson
1981: 194). In essence, he holds that community-based social movements must
incorporate the larger structures, dynamics, and processes in to their efforts. In fact,
Bonnette (2004) argues that this multi-scalar focus is one defining feature of radical
environmentalism. The other features she argues define radical environmentalism are:
grassroots beginnings, a focus "on local communities and resources on every
organizational level, but also maintaining a global eye ... [and] living as a model of this
change... " (Bonnette 2004:18).
Harvey (1989) also argues that social movements must operate at multiple scales
simultaneously to succeed. He states:
209
Any political movement that does not embed itself in the heart of the urban
process is doomed to fail in advanced capitalist society. Any political movement
that does not secure its power within the urban process cannot long survive. Any
political movement that cannot offer ways out of the multiple alienations of
contemporary urban life cannot command mass support for the revolutionary
transformation of capitalism (Harvey 1989:254).
Also importantly illuminated in the preceding quote is the necessity of incorporation of
what Harvey terms the 'urban process.' This can also be understood as the processes by
which society organizes its living, working, social, and recreational lives.
The arguments of Sklair (1995), Katznelson (1981), and Harvey (1989) all
illustrate the importance of affecting change at multiple scales and globalizing local
disruptions. In the case of EcoVillage at Ithaca, this globalization of local disruptions is
affected through the role of educational model. The most significant impact EcoVillage
residents can have has very little to do with their individual ecological footprints, and
everything to do with participation in this educational model. Again, although the current
scope of impact resulting form EcoVillage's educational outreach is limited, EcoVillage
can be considered a space of resistance.
Naive Calculus
Even the residents that are committed to the educational or sustainability
components of EcoVillage's mission can certainly be accused of believing in what I term
a 'naIve calculus', the idea that small changes in the lives of individuals can add up to
have a cumulative effect that results in a large-scale transformation of social structures
210
(Elgin 1993; Maniates 2002). As Pickerill and Chatterton (2006:738) explain,
'autonomous geographies', the forms of everyday resistance they explore, " ... are based
around a belief in prefigurative politics (summed up by the phrase 'be the change you
want to see'), that change is possible through an accumulation of small changes,
providing much-needed hope against a feeling of powerlessness."
As Kirby (2004) argues, when people take an approach to the world in which they
accept responsibility for "the wider social and ecological environments that sustain us,
and promote... an ethic of stewardship over continued exploitation," they feel compelled
to create their ...
.. .own domestic space of resistance that presents an irresistible form of protest to
the globalizing industrial/capitalist system. The message that emerges from a
community such as the Ecovillage at Ithaca is - if we don't buy it, they can't sell
it.
This statement of Kirby's (2004) demonstrates the tension that exists between the
domestic space of resistance and protest against the ills of the capitalist system and the
'na"ive calculus' that may exist at EcoVillage and other spaces of everyday resistance.
As a result of just these types of tensions, scholars have questioned the scale of
the impact of everyday resistance, arguing that although it does improve the quality of
life of participants, it does not have the ability to transform the global capitalist
economy.6 For instance, Maniates (2002:209) argues that in the case of voluntary
6 See Pickerill and Chatterton (2006) for a discussion of this critique.
211
simplicity, those practicing this lifestyle have a narrow impact resulting from the
tendency of those involved to "...overemphasize individual culpability for materialism at
the cost of frank talk about the political and economic structures that manufacture." This,
and similar critiques about other everyday forms of resistance, evokes Sklair's (1995)
globalization of local disruptions, the iteration of the importance that social movements
interfere with all three spheres (economic, political, and cultural-ideological). If EcoVillage
at Ithaca fails to broaden the scope of local disruptions by ignoring broader-scale structures,
processes, and dynamics and if EcoVillage fails to globalize its local disruptions, its status as
a social movement, and hence a space of resistance, is compromised.
Admittedly, there is a tension between the lack of transformative impact of the
choices of individual EcoVillage residents and the impact EcoVillage itself has as a
demonstration of an alternative to middle-class, mainstream American culture. However,
it can be argued that there is room, or space, for resistance at all scales. I believe that
through its educational mission, and accompanying outreach, EcoVillage at Ithaca is
having an impact beyond the lives of the individual residents. Therefore, it can be
considered an effective space of resistance.
Conclusions
Kirby (2004) tells that the ecovillage movement and the anti-globalization
movements have risen in tandem. Further, he argues that "engaging in a domestically-
based protest offers the potential for modeling a positive response to a social situation
212
that is viewed as untenable, inequitable, corrupt, and repressive" (Kirby 2004). And,
although the middle-class has not historically posed significant challenges or resistance to
the dominant structures, processes, and dynamics (such as capitalism and consumer
culture), the middle-class has been attracted to ecovillages and their less threatening
appearance.
In this document, I have argued that although the individual residents do not
necessarily consider themselves political activists, the EcoVillage itself is a new space in
which residents execute resistance in their everyday practices. In addition, as a result of
its educational mission and outreach activities, EcoVillage can be understood as an
activist space and can be considered a space of resistance to consumer society. This
understanding implies that acts of resistance do have the potential to have impacts
beyond the lives of those resisting, and perhaps have the potential to meaningfully change
society. As Bang (2005: 190) so accurately describes, "ecovillage examples can still show
people that these things work and a working system speaks louder than a thousand protest
demonstrations."
213
APPENDIX
SAMPLE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
1. Can you tell me about your life before moving to EcoVillage.
a. What was satisfying and what was dissatisfying?
b. How did you feel about yourself, your lifestyle, and your material
consumption?
2. Why did you decide to move to EcoVillage?
3. How do you feel differently about yourself now?
4. Do you feel differently about 'mainstream' society now? In what way?
a. How do you view yourself in relation to 'mainstream' society now?
b. How do you view ecovillage in relation to 'mainstream' society now?
5. What do you feel your role is in society now versus before? Was this a deliberate
change?
6. What neighborhood db you live in?
a. Is this the only EcoVillage neighborhood you've lived in?
b. If not, why did you move?
7. What does EcoVillage mean to you?
8. Does the built form ofEcoVillage (houses, landscaping, pond) have meaning to
you?
a. Do the community/your interactions with other residents have meaning to
you?
b. How do you connect with this place?
9. How has living at EcoVillage influenced you?
10. How does the way EcoVillage is physically set up influence your behavior?
11. What is your role in the community?
12. How do you make your house feel like YOUR home?
13. Can you briefly take me through a typical day for you?
214
14. Are there any benefits beyond those you receive from your choice to live at
EcoVillage (to friends, family, the land, the world)? If so, what are they?
15. Does how you feel about EcoVillage change based on how you feel about things
that are going on in your life (i.e. family challenges, work challenges,
neighborhood challenges)?
16. How do you feel when you leave and then return after a period of time?
17. Why do you continue to live here?
18. Would you say that EcoVillage is a part of who you are? How so?
19. What other things make you who you are?
a. We all have multiple roles (personal identity, role in a family, role in a
workplace, etc.). Can you briefly list the roles you play in your life?
20. Is your spirituality related to EcoVillage in any way? If so, how?
21. Are your politics and role as a citizen related to EcoVillage in any way? If so,
how?
22. What goals are you achieving/concerns are you addressing by living here?
23. What do you believe are the reasons for EcoVillage's continued success?
a. What could EcoVillage do better?
24. How do 60 households from two different neighborhoods make a village?
25. Is there a collective, cultural identity among the people who live here? Tell me
about it.
26. How does visiting EcoVillage affect newcomers (students, visitors, new
res idents)?
27. In your mind, what is the most important characteristic of EcoVillage?
28. Do you see EcoVillage as being created in reaction to anything? If so, what?
29. Do you see EcoVillage as creating something new? If so, what?
30. What do you believe to be EcoVillage's primary mission (role in the world)?
----------
215
31. What do ecovillages in general have to offer the world (role in the world)?
32. Do think that all the ecovillages that are coming into being is a social movement?
33. Do you think of ecovillages as the most powerful tool we can use in America to
fix the many problems we now face? Globally?
a. What other tools to you believe are helpful?
b. What influences do you think 'mainstream' Americans need in order to
change their lifestyles?
34. What are the current major challenges for you at EcoVillage (conflicts,
accountability, enforceability)?
a. Past major challenges?
35. What are the disadvantages of living at EcoVillage?
36. How is living at EcoVillage different from what you expected when you were
considering moving here or when you first arrived?
37. What do you think were the most important considerations when your
neighborhood was being built?
38. Did you participate in the design of your house?
a. If so, was this participation important to you and why?
b. What did you gain from you participation?
39. What green building features in the community and in your house are of particular
use to you and why?
a. What would you like to understand better about green features in your
house and in the community?
40. What are some of your favorite cultural, natural, and built features of EcoVillage?
Why?
a. What are some of your least favorite? Why?
b. What is the most important aspect of living in your neighborhood now?
41. How do you feel about future development at EcoVillage?
a. How do you feel about the Green Cluster, in particular?
b. What information would better help you to formulate an opinion?
42. What do you think would be the most important thing to incorporate into the
Green Cluster and why?
a. What do you not want to see?
43. How do you feel about multiplexes and high density buildings?
a. How do you feel about communal living and financial arrangements?
44. Tell me how you feel about the impact of your current material consumption
choices (on the environment and on workers)?
45. How do you think most Americans feel about material consumption?
a. Is this different from how EcoVillage residents feel?
46. How do you think materialism, (i.e. orienting oneself towards external goals
[money, image, etc.] rather than internal goals [friendships, personal growth,
etc.]), affects people?
47. What do you think the relationship is between material consumption and
happiness/well-being/life satisfaction?
a. Is this different from the relationship is between income and
happiness/well-being/life satisfaction? How?
48. What do you think people really want out of life?
a. What do you really want out of life?
b. Does living at EcoVillage help you attain these things?
49. Tell me what you know about 'voluntary simplicity'.
50. What do you think of capitalism as the dominant global economy?
a. What alternatives do you envision?
51. Do you think there is a relationship between capitalism and the way most of
America has been built up?
52. How would you like to see my efforts used to help EcoVillage?
53. Are there any questions I should have asked that I didn't?
54. Is there anything else you'd like to share with me?
216
217
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adair, Margo and Sharon Howell. 1992. "Women Weave Community." Pp. 35 - 41 in
Circles ofStrength: Community Alternatives to Alienation, edited by H. Forsey.
Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.
Ahrentzen, Sherry. 1989. "Introduction." Pp. xi - xv in New Households, New Housing,
edited by K. A. Franck and S. Ahrentzen. New York, NY: Van Nostrand
Rienhold.
Appleby, Joyce. 1999. "Consumption in Early Modem Social Thought." Pp. 130-144 in
Consumer Society in American History: A Reader, edited by L. B. Glickman.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Arndt, Jamie, Sheldon Solomon, Tim Kasser, and Kennon M. Sheldon. 2004a. "The Urge
to Splurge Revisited: Further Reflections on Applying Terror Management
Theory to Materialism and Consumer BehavioL" Journal of Consumer
Psychology 14:225-229.
-. 2004b. "The Urge to Splurge: A Terror Management Account of Materialism and
Consumer BehavioL" Journal of Consumer Psychology 14:198-212.
Bang, Jan Martin. 2005. Ecovillages: A Practical Guide to Sustainable Communities.
Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers.
Bates, Albert. 2003a. "A 73-Year-Old Ecovillage in the Land of Ice and Fire."
Communities Magazine.
-. 2003b. "Ecovillage Roots (and Branches): When, where, and how we re-invented this
ancient village concept." Communities Magazine.
Billig, Michael. 1999. "Commodity Fetishism and Repression: Reflections on Marx,
Freud and the Psychology of Consumer Capitalism." Theory & Psychology 9:313-
329.
Black, lain S. 2003. "(Re)reading architectural landscapes." Pp. 19-46 in Studying
Cultural Landscapes, edited by I. Robertson and P. Richards. New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
Bokaer, Joan. 1991. "The Ecological Imperative." EcoVillage at Ithaca Newsletter.
218
Bonnette, Kirsten. 2004. "One Way to an Ecocentric Future: Ecovillages and the
Ecovillage Movement in Anthropology." Senior Paper Thesis, The Department of
Anthropology, The Colorado College, Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Brown, Kirk Warren and Tim Kasser. 2005. "Are Psychological and Ecological Well-
Being Compatible? The Role of Values, Mindfulness, and Lifestyle." Social
Indicators Research 74:349-368.
Bruegmann, Robert. 2005. Sprawl: A Compact History. Chicago, IL: The University of
Chicago Press.
Castells, Manuel. 1983. The City and the Grassroots: A Cross-cultural Theory of Urban
Social Movements. Berkeley: University of California Press
Clark, Mary E. 1995. "Changes in Euro-American Values Needed for Sustainability."
Journal ofSocial Issues 51 :63 - 82.
Crabtree, Louise. 2005. "Sustainable Housing Development in Urban Australia:
exploring obstacles to and opportunities for ecocity efforts." Australian
Geographer 36:333 - 350.
Crampton, Jeremy W. and Stuart Elden. 2007. "Space, Knowledge and Power: Foucault
and Geography." Pp. 1 - 18 in Space, Knowledge and Power: Foucault and
Geography, edited by J. W. Crampton and S. Elden. Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Cresswell, Tim. 2000. "Falling Down: Resistance as Diagnostic." Pp. 256 - 268 in
Entanglements ofPower: Geographies ofdomination/resistance, edited by J. P.
Sharp, P. Routledge, C. Philo, and R. Paddison. New York: Routledge.
-.2004. Place: a short introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Inc.
Cromley, Elizabeth. 1989. "Chapter 2: Apartments and Collective Life in Nineteenth-
Century New York." Pp. 20 - 46 in New Households, New Housing, edited by K.
A. Franck and S. Ahrentzen. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Dawson, Jonathan. 2006. Ecovillages: New Frontiersfor Sustainability. Devon, UK:
Green Books Ltd.
Duany, Andres, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck. 2000. Suburban Nation: The
Rise ofSprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. New York, New York:
North Point Press.
219
Dunn, Kevin. 2005. "Interviewing." Pp. 79-105 in Qualitative Research Methods in
Human Geography, edited by 1. Hay. New York: Oxford University Press.
Elgin, Duane. 1993. Voluntary Simplicity: Toward a Way ofLife that is Outwardly
Simple, Inwardly Rich. New York, NY: William Morrow and Company, Inc.
Etzioni, Amitai. 1999. "Voluntary Simplicity: A New Social Movement?" Pp. 107-128 in
21st Century Economics: Perspectives ofSocioeconomics for a Changing World,
edited by W. E. Halal and K. B. Taylor. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.
Foster, John Bellamy. 1999. The Vulnerable Planet. New York: NY: Cornerstone Books.
Foucault, Michel. 1978. The History ofSexuality: An Introduction, vol. 1. New York:
Vintage Books.
-. 1984. "Space, Knowledge, and Power." Pp. 239 - 256 in The Foucault Reader, edited
by P. Rabinow. New York: Pantheon.
Franck, Karen A. 1989. "Chapter 1: Overview of Collective and Shared Housing." Pp. 3 -
19 in New Households, New Housing, edited by K. A. Franck and S. Ahrentzen.
New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Geller, E. Scott. 1995. "Integrating Behaviorism and Humanism for Environmental
Protection." Journal ofSocial Issues 51:179 - 195.
Gilman, Robert. 1991. "The Eco-village Challenge." Living Together Summer 1991.
Global Ecovillage Network. 2007. http://gen.ecovillage.org.
Goss, Jon. 2004. "Geography of Consumption 1." Progress in Human Geography 28:369-
380.
Graae, Bodil. 1967. "Children Should Have One Hundred Parents."
Graham, Elspeth. 2005. "Philosophies underlying human geography research." Pp. 6-30
in Methods in Human Geography: a guide for students doing research projects,
edited by R. Flowerdew and D. Martin: Prentice Hall.
Gudmand-Hoyer. 1968. "The Missing Link Between Utopia and the Dated One-Family
House."
Gupta, Akhil and James Ferguson. 1997. Culture, Power, Place: Explorations in Critical
Anthropology. Durham and London: 1997.
220
Hallin, Sigrid. 1991. "Planning for a New Everyday Reality: the Collective Housing
Experience in Sweden." School of Urban Planning, McGill University, Montreal,
QC, Canada.
Harvey, David. 1993a. "Class relations, social justice and the politics of difference." Pp.
41-66 in Place and the Politics ofIdentity, edited by M. Keith and S. Pile.
London: Routledge.
-. 1993b. "From space to place and back again: reflections on the condition of
modernity." Pp. 3-29 in Mapping the Futures: Local Cultures: Global Change,
edited by J. Bird, B. Curtis, T. Putnam, G. Robertson, and L. Tickner. London:
Routledge.
-. 1989. The Urban Experience. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
-.2000. Spaces ofHope, Edited by M. Watts, A. Pred, R. Walker, G. Hart, A. Saxenian,
and M. B. Pudup. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Hayden, Dolores. 1977. Seven American Utopias: The Architecture of Communitarian
Socialism, 1790 - 1975. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
-.2002. Redesigning the American Dream: Gender, Housing, and Family Life. W.W.
Norton & Company: New York, NY.
-.2003. Building Suburbia: Green Fields and Urban Growth, 1920-2000. New York,
NY: Vintage Books.
Haynes, D. and G. Prakash. 1991. Contesting Power: Resistance and Everyday Social
Relations in South Asia. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Heilbroner, Robert L. 1988. "Capitalism as a Regime." Pp. 35-62 in Behind the Veil of
Economics: Essays in the Worldly Philosophy. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company, Inc.
Jackson, Hildur and Karen Svensson. 2002. Ecovillage Living: Restoring the Earth and
Her People. Devon, UK: Green Books Ltd.
Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Death and L(fe of Great American Cities. New York, New York:
Vintage Books.
Kasser, Tim. 2002. The High Price ofMaterialism. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
221
Kasser, Tim and Allen D. Kanner. 2004. Psychology and Consumer Culture: The
Struggle for a Good Life in a Materialistic World. Washington, D.C.: American
Psychological Association.
Kasser, Tim and Richard M. Ryan. 1993. "A Dark Side of the American Dream:
Correlates of Financial Success as a Central Life Aspiration." Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology 65:410-422.
-. 1996. "Further Examining the American Dream: Differential Correlates of Intrinsic
and Extrinsic Goals." Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22:280-287.
Kasser, Tim, Richard M. Ryan, Charles E. Couchman, and Kennon M. Sheldon. 2004.
"2: Materialistic Values: Their Causes and Consequences." Pp. 11-28 in
Psychology and Consumer Culture: The Struggle for a Good Life in a
Materialistic World, edited by T. Kasser and A. D. Kanner. Washington, D.C.:
American Psychological Association.
Kasser, Tim and Kennon M. Sheldon. 2000. "Of Wealth and Death: Materialism,
Mortality Salience, and Consumption Behavior." Psychological Science 11 :348-
351.
Katznelson, Ira. 1982. City Trenches: Urban Politics and the Patterning of Class in the
United States. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Keams, Robin A. 2005. "Knowing Seeing? Undertaking Observational Research." Pp.
192-206 in Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography, edited by 1. Hay.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Kirby, Andy. 2003. "Redefining social and environmental relations at the ecovillage at
Ithaca: A case study." Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology 23:323-332.
-. 2004. "Domestic Protest: The Ecovillage Movement as a Space of Resistance." Bad
Subjects: http://bad.eserver.org/issuesI2004/65/kirby.html.
Kozeny, Geoph. 2005a. "In Community, Intentionally." Pp. 12-17 in Communities
Directory: A Comprehensive Guide to Intentional Communities and Cooperative
Living. Rutledge, MO: The Fellowship for Intentional Community.
-. 2005b. "Red Carpets and Slammed Doors: Visiting Communities." Pp. 23-29 in
Communities Directory: A Comprehensive Guide to Intentional Communities and
Cooperative Living. Rutledge, MO: The Fellowship for Intentional Community.
Kunstler, James Howard. 1993. The Geography ofNowhere: The Rise and Decline of
America's Man-Made Landscape. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
222
Lefebvre, Henri. 1991. The Production ofSpace. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Logan, John R. and Harvey L. Molotch. 1987. Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of
Place. Berkeley and Los Angeles, California: University of California Press.
Maniates, Michael. 2002. "9: In Search of Consumptive Resistance: The Voluntary
Simplicity Movement." Pp. 199-235 in Confronting Consumption, edited by T.
Princen, M. Maniates, and K. Conca. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Marx, Karl and Freidrich Engles. 1848 & 1844. "Manifesto of the Communist Party
(1848) and Alienated Labor (1844)." Pp. 27-36 in From Modernization to
Globalization: Perspectives on Development and Social Change, Blackwell
Readers in Sociology, edited by J. T. Roberts and A. Hite. Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
McCamant, Kathryn M. and Charles R. Durrett. 1989. "Chapter 5: Cohousing in
Denmark." Pp. 95 - 126 in New Households, New Housing, edited by K. A.
Franck and S. Ahrentzen. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
-. 1994. Cohousing: A Contemporary Approach to Housing Ourselves. Berkeley, CA:
Ten Speed Press.
Meltzer, Graham. 2000. "Cohousing: Verifying the Importance of Community in the
Application of Environmentalism." Journal ofArchitectural and Planning
Research 17:110 - 132.
-.2005. Sustainable Community: Learning from the cohousing model. Victoria, BC,
Canada: Trafford Publishing.
Morse, Janice M. 1994. "Designing funded qualitative research." Pp. 56-85 in Strategies
o.f Qualitative Inquiry, edited by N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Myers, David G. 2004. "What is the Good Life?" Yes! Magazine, Summer 2004.
Norwood, Ken. 1995. "Introduction." Pp. xiii - xviii in Rebuilding Community in
America: Housing for Ecological Living, Personal Empowerment, and the New
Extended Family, edited by K. Norwood and K. Smith. Berkeley, CA: Shared
Living Resource Center.
Norwood, Ken and Kathleen Smith. 1995. Rebuilding Community in America: Housing
for Ecological Living, Personal Empowerment, and the New Extended Family.
Berkeley, CA: Shared Living Resource Center.
223
O'Connor, James. 1998. "Uneven and Combined Development and Ecological Crisis."
Pp. 187-199 in Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Panelli, Ruth and Richard Welch. 2005. "Why community? Reading difference and
singularity with community." Environment and Planning A 37:1589 - 1611.
Pickerill, Jenny and Paul Chatterton. 2006. "Notes towards autonomous geographies:
creation, resistance and self-management as survival tactics." Progress in Human
Geography 30:730-746.
Pile, Steve. 1997. "Introduction: opposition, political identities and spaces of resistance."
Pp. 1 - 32 in Geographies ofResistance, edited by S. Pile and M. Keith. New
York: Routledge.
Sawyer, Malcolm. 1988. "Theories of Monopoly Capitalism." Journal ofEconomic
Surveys 2:47-76.
Schaub, Laird. 2005. "State of the Communities Movement: Getting Hitched." Pp. 19-22
in Communities Directory: A Comprehensive Guide to Intentional Communities
and Cooperative Living. Rutledge, MO: The Fellowship for Intentional
Community.
Schoenauer, Norbert. 1989. "Chapter 3: Early European Collective Habitation." Pp. 47 -
70 in New Households, New Housing, edited by K. A. Franck and S. Ahrentzen.
New York, NY: Van Nostrand Rienhold.
Sheldon, Kennon M., Andrew J. Elliot, Youngmee Kim, and Tim Kasser. 2001. "What is
Satisfying About Satisfying Events? Testing 10 Candidate Psychological Needs."
Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology 80:325-339.
Sheldon, Kennon M. and Tim Kasser. 2001. "Goals, Congruence, and Positive Well-
Being: New Empirical Support for Humanistic Theories." Journal ofHumanistic
Psychology 41:30-50.
Shannon, Thomas R. 1996. An Introduction to the World-System Perspective. Boulder,
CO: Westview Press, Inc.
Sharp, Joanne P., Paul Routledge, Chris Philo, and Ronan Paddison. 2000.
"Entanglements of Power: Geographies of domination/resistance." Pp. 1 - 42 in
Entanglements ofPower: Geographies ofdomination/resistance, Critical
Geographies, edited by J. P. Sharp, P. Routledge, C. Philo, and R. Paddison. New
York: Routledge.
224
SkIair, Leslie. 1995. "Social Movements and Global Capitalism (1995)." Pp. 340-352 in
From Modernization to Globalization: Perspectives on Development and Social
Change, 1, edited by J. T. Roberts and A. Hite. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing Ltd.
Stearns, Peter N. 2001. Consumerism in World History: The Global Transformation of
Desire, Edited by P. N. Stearns. New York, NY: Rutledge.
Tajbakhsh, Kian. 2001. The Promise of the City: Space, Identity, and Politics in
Contemporary Social Thought. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of
California Press, Ltd.
Walker, Liz. 2005. EcoVillage at Ithaca: Pioneering a Sustainable Culture. Gabriola
Island, BC: New Society Publishers.
White, Rob. 2002. "Environmental Harm and the Political Economy of Consumption."
Social Justice 29:82-102.
Williams, Jo. 2005. "Designing Neighbourhoods for Social Interaction: The Case of
Cohousing." Journal of Urban Design 10:195 - 227.
Winchester, Hilary P.M. 2005. "Qualitative Research and its Place in Human
Geography." Pp. 3-18 in Qualitative Research Methods in Human Geography,
edited by I. Hay. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wonderland Hill Development Company. "What is Cohousing?" Boulder, CO:
http://www.whdc.com/.
Woodward, Alison. 1989. "Chapter 4: Communal Housing in Sweden: A Remedy for the
Stress of Everyday Life?" Pp. 71 - 94 in New Households, New Housing, edited
by K. A. Franck and S. Ahrentzen. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Rienhold.
Wright, Gwendolyn. 1983. Building the Dream: A Social History ofHousing in America.
New York, New York: Pantheon Books.