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, 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.

***

As with many communities, Findhorn consciously attempts to infuse interpersonal relations with high degrees of love, trust, affirmation, openness, empathy, gentleness and the like. Cooperation is stressed in lieu of competition. In this connection the community bears a close resemblance to the T.O.R.I. groups operated by Jack Gibbs, or the communal living experiments of Carl Rogers (Gibbs, 1971: Rogers, 1970). Perhaps one of the basic differences between Findhorn and some other community experiments is that Findhorn seems remarkably successful in reaching its goal of day-to-day caring relationships. From what members reported (and from what I observed) most relationships, even those of short duration are often characterized by high levels of intimacy. Yet, there seems to be no expectation that intimacy is necessary or has to happen. One way to avoid forcing intimacy is to fully recognize the importance of privacy and quietness for each individual, something that Findhorn does. Thus, an informal rule seems to be that those who prefer to be alone are to be respected.

Part of the social psychological genius of Findhorn lies in its unusual ability in creating a social milieu where the polarities of human wants and needs can be met without apology, explanation or guilt. While offering the possibility of much dependence and intimacy, equally respected and possible are the chances to satisfy basic needs of independence and solitude. Perhaps the latter is more difficult to realize in our modern world, and especially in communities which may attract people long deprived of solid relationships and who can be quite dependent. Cooper suggests we have a prohibition against experiencing our aloneness in the world, and that to be integrated we have to discover”… a fluent dialectic that moves all the time on the shifting antithesis between being alone and being with the other” (Cooper, 1971:14). The respect allowed for solitude and aloneness offers a key to understanding the intimacy which exists in the community–and in turn the deeper intimacy helps us understand the positive aspects of solitude. The organism moves at its own time from one pole to the other, presumably being fulfilled at each pole. Again, the comparison with the theory of Gestalt community can scarcely be avoided, for the above constitutes one of their specific goals (Perls, 1967).

Expressed another way, Findhorn seems very successful at removing the obligation structure from relationships. One is not obligated to be either alone or with others–pressures and rules sensed in many groups. Their rules seem to be: love yourself and (as a divine entity) trust yourself by doing only what feels right at the center of your being. Thus, instead of loneliness, there is solitude, and in lieu of relationship there is intimacy. Intimacy with oneself, nurtured by solitude easily becomes intimacy for another, which can just as easily turn into intimacy for oneself. The polarities support each other.

“It is not the number of friends that is different here but the quality which infuses intentional relationships,” said one three-year resident of Findhorn–a young man who had lived in other communities, and who seemed additionally qualified in his observations because of his PhD. in philosophy. He went on to add that the most intimate relationships were between roommates and then offered that he could, without stress, room with almost anyone at Findhorn, whereas this had not been true at other communities. Are we to conclude from this that the people at Findhorn are different in some marvelous way? My preferred explanation is the sociological one sketched above–namely, that the answer lies in the rules governing relationships (recognizing that these in turn can alter one’s inner attitudes–or what they might say is one’s attunement and consciousness). Others in the community talked about either having, or wanting to have, what they called “impersonal love”–love for others regardless of who the other was, and apart from gains or interpersonal payoffs.

There seem to be two basic patterns of heterosexual romantic love in the community. The first pattern was celibacy, the path seemingly chosen by a definite minority and (2) stable heterosexual relationships. There had been and were reportedly some gay couples of both sexes, and some bisexuals in the community, but they seemed to be accepted without opprobrium. At some point earlier in the community an important minority of young couples had engaged in mate swapping, and the reports I had indicated this had been met with a prevailing sense of understanding and acceptance (if not love). When I was there the community reportedly had passed beyond this stage (with a few exceptions of which I was aware) to a pattern of either celibacy or committed partners. An exception to this would occur when a new member entered the community, during which time there might be a period of “shopping around.” A few members of the community believed there was much sexual frustration present–and someone else said that the community ran mainly on sublimated sexual energy. Also expressed was the belief that couples ought not to fall in love in a way which made the community irrelevant. This sense of the importance of bonding with a number of other people, if followed, would undoubtedly help tie the whole community together.

To summarize the picture of sexual intimacy: Findhorn seemed to have an overall pattern of either celibacy or committed heterosexual partners. However, and again in keeping with what I call the genius of the community, there was room for some behavior deviant from the dominant practices. In accepting the reality of people and people’s needs, in trusting persons to carefully express their own needs and wants–again in the reconciliation and acceptance of opposites (the new age person with his lofty consciousness as well as the sexual needs of primordial man!)–in this embracing of far-flung polarities, the community does away with much fear, guilt, unreality, the rule book and the police state all in one fell action.

Finally, there is the essential question of how does the community handle “negative” interpersonal emotions such as anger and distrust. How such feelings are processed has a great deal to do with the quality of interaction and the stability and longevity of any relationship, a fact attested to by a host of astute, contemporary growth therapies. The modal way of handling this issue in many groups is for everyone to buy into a conspiracy of silence (which pretends everything is fine) while leaving real issues festering underneath as a guaranteed drain on personal energy. Such an approach, favored for example in the bureaucratic hierarchies of business, government and academia, also guarantees that real issues go unresolved, and false issues are inflated as real ones. In such a climate people easily become confused, and fear, distance and distrust become frequently experienced emotions while various psychosomatic stress symptoms are quite predictable.

Other communities (like Findhorn) recognize the reality of negative interpersonal feelings, much more than do our ruling hierarchies. Walden Two had its general bastard and later a bitch box–a direct recognition of the problem, but an indirect way of dealing with it (i.e. file complaints through another person or a message box). Oneida practiced mutual criticism, and seemed to make this process work quite well. Findhorn, in keeping with their unyielding realism, recognizes the problem and deals with it in various direct ways–one being through their process of “sharing.” Sharing is a time for expressing negative feelings, but as Hawken notes, it is not a Synanon attack game (Hawken, 1976:45). During sharing time the residents report on their negative feelings “owning” them as their own, and not getting into endless blame cycles of “you made me angry” etc. Whether through intuition or direct plagiarism, this practice is precisely that commended in a dozen or more growth schools–from T.A. to Gestalt to E.S.T. The success of their sharing depends not so much on technique as the overall caring process–sometimes they make it work well enough to bring a blush to the face of a Warnar Erhardt or a Ron Hubbard.

More recently Findhorn has been invaded by merchandizers of various personal and interpersonal therapeutic techniques; several Gestalt therapists have been there as well as some T.A. people, Rolfers, Touch for Health, etc. Apparently the Gestalt path did not take–my guess is because the community already has so many similarities to that school. The Touch for Health movement was incorporated into Findhorn along with co-counseling, and while I was there, some Re-Birthers from California were training twenty or thirty people in their therapeutic procedure. Some of these approaches were being used in helping process negative personal and interpersonal feelings. As with so many impinging influences, Findhorn opens its arms, seems to skillfully appropriate that which works and feels right, and rejects the rest without further thought. Again, the operational belief is that there are no accidents; that which is needed or appropriate will come at precisely the right moment, and if it doesn’t come, or comes and is rejected, all is equally perfect.[1]

 

[1] Based on my eight years of experience as a participant and/or leader of various communication and growth groups, my judgment was that some of the group leaders at Findhorn showed great skill while others were decidedly marginal. Certainly they were not using all of the available helpful techniques, nor were all of their leaders well-trained; yet overall, they made the process work to serve their ends.