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.

***

Along with feedback, decision making procedures are a part of all groups; the way decisions are made can have profound impact on the stability, longevity and quality of life of any group. The literature on community suggests that decision making can almost either make or break the group. Several members at Findhorn stated that decision making was the point of greatest tension in the community. Also stressed was the notion that it was important not to allow anyone else to run one’s own life, thus very fundamental in the decision making process was the importance of personal responsibility: one was to make as many as possible of the decisions which immediately affected one’s own life. The sphere of personal influence (supported by the belief that each person is divine in her/his own way) seems extended to its maximum–yet clearly it is not the hang-loose ethic of “do-your-own-thing” which spelled the death of some communes. As I have pointed out before, one of the great strengths of Findhorn is its inclusion of polarities: while the individual has great freedom in decision making, so also does the group. Reconciliation of these seeming opposites, appears to depend on at least two critical factors, (1) the ability to frequently and accurately differentiate which decision is properly a group one and which is personal and (2) the flexibility and elasticity of both individuals and the collective for modifying or giving up preferred choices. I believe both these elements are critical in the success of all interpersonal relationships–diads, groups, communities and societies.

One way the above was expressed by members was in the belief that it is appropriate to knock at the door–even to bang on it–but equally important was refraining from knocking the door down. An example used on more than one occasion was in regard to joining the community: if at first one were refused the rule would be to try again and perhaps again and again; however at some point the feedback, if always negative ought to lead one to cease and desist knocking–if not for one’s salvation at least to preserve the knuckles.[1]

In this fluid process both individual and the group win and lose decisions, as the life of the community flows from one moment to another. The “nowness” of the time orientation may account for the fact that no one seems to keep score–“you win some and you lose some” seems to be the realistic settlement made by most.

As another brief example of what I believe is a little understood and complex decision making process, occurs regularly in the routine of the kitchen. As first-time cooks come in (guests or members), they are encouraged to prepare their favorite recipe. The new cook makes the decision with others in the kitchen and they may help in preparing the new dish. Because of the lack of hierarchy, the size, informality and extended intimacy of the group, evaluation of the new dish is communicated quickly, and the feedback may well reach the cooks later that evening. As I understand the process it would now be a personal decision for the individual who cooked the new dish, as to whether to re-serve it or not. If he inaccurately assesses the feedback or accurately reads it but does the opposite, he may for example make the dish several more times before the other kitchen help gives more explicit feedback (as individuals or as a group). It is important to note that this is only one analysis of this process. Also, important is the observation that most of the above processes seem typically to occur easily and naturally–without becoming a formal issue requiring conscious time by some deliberately selected group.

Frequent and accurate feedback allows pleasing (if not “correct” decisions to occur); decisions once made can be modified an hour or day later as feedback decrees. (While this may give an impression of a group with both feet always in the air, such is not accurate, for their belief system provides a bedrock from which one leaps into the air in the first place–again the integration of polarities.)

As I said earlier, the decision making process sketched above is both subtle and complex and thus I believe little understood[2]. Charles-Hampden Turner has developed a model for “psycho-social development” which I use in an attempt to further understand the decision making process used at Findhorn (C. H. Turner, 1971). Turner’s model assumes that (1) man has considerable choice in thought and action (an assumption which appears true for Findhorn) and that through his (2) perception and self-identity he (3) experiences himself as competent and (4) he invests his competence with intensity expressing himself as authentically as possible; (5) but following this self­ expression he is willing to suspend his own cognitive structures and feelings and risk himself (and his beliefs) in, (6) trying to authentically understand others while bridging the gap to them; then (7) an attempt at self-confirmation and self-transcendence is made which can (8) lead to a synergistic relationship (or union of ideas), and finally (9) each person in this process will attempt to integrate the feedback into “mental matrices of developing complexity” (C. H. Turner, 1970:31). In summary I believe the decision making process at Findhorn involves all the steps in Turner’s theory–a belief in freedom, an experience of self-confidence and competence, and intense involvement in authentically expressing oneself, combined with a willingness to risk all in empathetically entering another’s world, and out of all this both individuals and the group can reach a synergistic decision. The belief in freedom and in one’s importance and competence is soundly supported by their ideology, as is their desire to fully understand another’s world.

In terms of the formal organization of the community and its role in decision making, at the top of the flexible hierarchy would be the Caddys. Their role seems to be more that of honorific founders and elders; while they have input in some decisions, they are typically not involved in day-to-day decisions. Next would be the officers of the legal trust; they appear to be highly respected, long time members of the community, and as with the Caddys their voice seems to be heard most clearly in official and legal decisions which interface with the outside world, and/or in matters of unusual importance within the community. Other administrators (personnel, finance, bookkeeping, for example) are responsible for making decisions affecting their immediate sphere of influence, but as with any member are free to enter the decision making process where decisions affect everyone. The “Core Group”, in Spring of 1977 consisted of 18 members (14 males, 4 females). Their average length of stay was approximately 1½ years. They apparently were selected because they were widely liked, “natural leaders,” and had “good energy..” The Core Group’s function reportedly was to stay attuned to what was happening in the community, to help establish policy and make decisions which were not made more informally. The Focalizers group had a member for each work area; this group seemed the most informal of any in the hierarchy. Members were selected very informally and perhaps would be a Focalizer for only a day or a week–while others might be for a year or more. Often people who were not “naturally good” leaders were selected for this function. Focalizers not only met as a group, but operated as individuals in the work areas. Focalizers’ prime functions were to be sensitive and aware of feelings and issues being talked about in the whole community, to have fun, and to “channel energy” to others as needed.

In summary; the hierarchy that exists in the community is generally quite informal, with few roles, rules and offices. The sphere of influence for each group or person seemed just as informal and undefined. There did not appear to be any well-defined communication channels or procedures. Reportedly, more and more decisions were being made outside the official bodies or members cited above and this was seen as desirable by everyone I interviewed. The decision-making process is thus very fluid and informal, and based on general (unwritten) guidelines and a particular “type of consciousness” which is deeply imbedded in the belief and action system of the community. Because there are no formally established communication channels, communication occurs between any of the groups or between individuals at any time. Several members expressed the belief that government ought to be the reflection of the consciousness of the group. Zablocki, after visiting over 100 communes, states he knows of none where decisions are made by majority vote; rather decision by consensus was the rule. He states that a typical decision making session involves members actively listening and probing evermore deeply into the feelings, meanings, and motivations of others, until finally a common ground is found and everyone can be happy with the decision. Such group processes yield a high sense of solidarity, and as Zablocki notes the more difficult the decision the closer people are brought together (Zablocki, 1971:315-16). These observations seem to accurately describe decision-making at Findhorn; while the process is exceedingly complex and subtle when closely scrutinized, in daily operation it operates simply as an act of intimacy which increases the social bonding of members. Paradoxically, the more difficult the decision the closer members are brought together–the opposite to that which occurs in many groups.

[1] When our family arrived at Findhorn in May, 1977, incredibly enough they had a practice of not allowing children as guests (Heather and Todd were 8 and 6 at the time). My immediate and outspoken reaction was one approximating righteous outrage, especially since my favorite welcome fantasy saw joyful hugs all around and well-tossed Frisbees in the air. No children allowed, in a community overrun with fairies and elves? I also thought it relevant to ask if a community based on the Christ spirit knew anything about the Master’s love for children? I pounded on the door until they must have been convinced I would break it down. For two days our family was thoroughly disillusioned with this Scottish Disneyland turned sour–to the point where I was ready to cancel my research. Not one to be easily dissuaded, I appeared at the door again, and this time a hand reached out before I could knock. Whether the hand sensed that I was prepared to knock civilly, or whether by cunning I sneaked in the back door despite what I saw as the myopic gatekeepers at the front, is only an academic issue. Suffice to say my feedback was heard; their response was to yield up their ghostly precedent not once but three times, for in that week–maybe by virtue of what Jung called synchronicity–two other families arrived and we were all in the same guest group. Perhaps the “magic of Findhorn” had happened again; children entertained each other, child care was easily shared by all the parents, and best of all(!) the members were given an ideal chance to whet their sense of communality on the “real” nature spirits of this planet, our children. During the three weeks we were there, we helped prepare the children’s building for that summer when they would officially accept children as guests with parents. Typically, the children’s building was being readied with all the love and energy interested members could offer; layers of paint were being scraped from walls by hand for this would instill “better energy” (than would electric sanders). While we were there, as many as twenty members and guests were spending long afternoons scraping paint–a typical Findhorn work routine, extremely low in efficiency but equally high in love and fun.

 

[2] A simple analogy which may help capture the flavor (if not the essence) of this decision making process, would be to recall the most recent picnic shared with loved ones. How was the place decided upon? And the choice of wine, dessert, main course, seating arrangement, topic of conversation ad infinitum? Decision making in the picnic context (the family reunion may be an exception) seems merely to “happen” without planning, debates and committees-­ because of a long-shared, resonant empathy between those who love deeply. The Findhorn decision making process, on a typical day-to-day basis, seems to “just happen” this way.