Editor’s Note: the following is from a paper based on research conducted by Al McLeod from California State University Fresno, California during his visit in 1977 to the Findhorn Foundation Community. The paper is entitled Findhorn, Fact or Fiction? A Sociological Study of a Scottish Intentional Community. As was common at the time, the author used the name “Findhorn”, instead of “the Findhorn Foundation Community” throughout the paper. We apologise to our local neighbours for the upset this appropriation of their name may cause.

***

In understanding the workings of interpersonal relations at Findhorn (something I have earlier suggested is one of the keys in understanding the success of their community) it is important that we conceptualize the process as completely and sharply as we can so that the central features are not missed. The concept of feedback is fundamental in this regard; daily interpersonal relations, sharing times and therapeutic group processes all employ this procedure. Feedback can be defined as the process of two or more people sharing their reactions (cognitive and affective) about each other, with each other. Feedback of some kind occurs often in most interpersonal relations, except that typically it tends to be general and evasive, avoiding whole areas of experiences defined as taboo. Groups that consciously use feedback processes encourage the content of feedback to be precise, clear, complete and reported upon as soon as one is aware of an important perception or reaction. During the process the social actors become the objects of discussion. The feedback process is a very self-and-other-conscious process: sharpened awareness of interpersonal and intrapersonal thoughts and feelings is often the essence of feedback.

That such a feedback process is not new seems obvious; that when applied in a very skilled and systematic fashion, accelerating the normal social process to the nth degree, a qualitative change occurs in interpersonal (if not intrapersonal) awareness is far less obvious. At what point a quantitative change leaps up to become qualitative is a matter of fascinating debate; though there seems to be agreement that atomic energy is qualitatively new, or that fission lies qualitatively beyond fusion, there likely is little agreement that an old age can become a new age simply because someone polishes up the feedback process. And yet this is what none other than Kenneth Boulding was positing back in 1963, in talking about feedback and self-other awareness. Boulding argued that a revolution was occuring: “…….this movement of the social system into self consciousness is perhaps one of the most significant phenomena of our time, and it represents a very fundamental break with the past … ” (Boulding, 1963: ). Luft states that, “A qualitative shift in the atmosphere takes place with the sharing of private reactions, tension may mount above the conventional meeting level, and the prospects for significant interactions are increased” (Luft, 1969:45). Parallel to this, Karl Deutsch has developed the notion of a system capable of consciousness, through a procedure whereby messages about normal and regular processes are collected and organized, so as to indicate how the system as a whole is operating–then this data is fed back into the system becoming a part of the new normal system, thus modifying the whole system (Deutsch, 1967: ). Mills states, “That systems might have this type of consciousness is a revolutionary idea” (Mills, 1968: ). The feedback process provides a self-scanning, self-monitoring system that can be seen as a cybernetic process, where feedback loops lead to a continuous change in the state of the system. Findhorn people liked to talk about the continuous changes that occurred in their living organism (group); I’m suggesting that a social psychological way of understanding this is via the cybernetic-feedback model outlined above. To parody Buckminster Fuller: Findhorn seems to be a verb.

It seems reasonable to assume that the clearer and more accurate the feedback, the less the time between action and feedback on the action (lag time),will directly affect the amount of corrective action taken (gain). Highly specific,accurate, and immediate loops, become the best way of making decisions which will enable the individual or group to best cope with its environment. Thus, inaccurate, general and delayed feedback can be tantamount to inadequate coping with the environment, and theoretically could lead to a lack of survival. Slater states that”… the inability to receive negative feedback is ultimately calamitous” (Slater, 1974:45). The skilled use of feedback results in a self-correcting system which is increasingly energy efficient because of increasingly correct decisions–so that the goal or target becomes increasingly centered as the margin of error shrinks.

Findhorn is an excellent example of a self-monitoring, cybernetic feedback social system. I’m suggesting that the internal operation of such groups is qualitatively different from groups which have low self-monitoring and feedback (and presumably therefore have lower success rates in terms of goal attainment). Self-monitoring social systems are in a state of rather constant change, vis-a-vis mechanistic, change resistant systems. The existence of frozen role categories, rigid hierarchies,codified and numerous rules all work against the process of change. These factors may also explain why more groups don’t use feedback in a more systematic way. As previously pointed out, Findhorn has few role categories, very little hierarchy and a paucity of written rules, all of which facilitate the change tied up with the self­ monitoring feedback process. If self-monitoring social systems are qualitatively different from those which do not make a systematic use of self-monitoring, then Findhorn’s claim to be a new age group can be supported by this sociological observation.

Philip Slater makes the observation that in our society many of us are preoccupied with inner–symbolic circuitry (due partly to our higher levels of education) and that we fail to reality test these inner circuits with the outer world (Slater, 1973). This stands in contrast to an individual or group which tests the inner (psychological) processes with the external (social­ ecological) for goodness of fit, via some kind of feedback procedure.

Rogers points out that when communication in a social network yields frequent and immediate feedback certain psychological states are a result, one being that a basic source of anxiety is removed–anxiety having to do with the question of where one stands in relationship with others, and the quality of those relations (Rogers, 1977). The mental state accruing from such a social situation has been called “flow”–and is characterized by a feeling of peace, social integration, being fully present in the now and overall well­ being.

The notion of feedback is close to the concepts of reflexivity and role taking as developed by George Herbert Mead. Role taking and reflexivity refer to the ability to stand apart from oneself and to imagine how one appears in the eyes of the other–what Cooley called “the looking glass self” (Cooley, 1902). Reflexivity, role taking and feedback are essential building blocks in the human drama, for without them communication, cooperation, understanding, empathy, prediction, stability and interaction are simply not possible. Again, everyone and every group has some reflexivity and feedback as part of daily routines; the above line of reasoning points clearly to the notion that a refinement in feedback enhances human interaction allowing for an increase in a host of social (and personal) graces. Findhorn’s concept of attunement seems close to the notions of role taking, reflexivity and feedback.