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.

A fundamental sociological question in the understanding of any group has to do with the question of how does the group hang together? What gives it order and stability? One way of answering this has to do with the role of authority and the basis of authority in the group. As stated earlier, historically Findhorn has been a charismatically based movement. In the first fifteen years of its existence, the community experienced five or six powerful, charismatic leaders; the fact that they worked cooperatively within the same group, must constitute something of a sociological record. (A normal prediction for such a roster would expect rivalry, power plays and a general state of one-upmanship with all the attendant politics and games.) Findhorn seems to have successfully mastered the critical task (which is the undoing of many sects and cults) of accomplishing what Max Weber saw as both difficult and important if a group is to continue vital–to wit, the diffusion of charisma to the rank and file, the process Weber called the routinization of charisma (Miller, 1968:16). Weber believed there were three bases for authority; 1) traditional, where authority was based on consideration of the past, 2) rational authority, where decisions were made on the basis of rational, logical rules, and 3) charismatic, where authority was based on a powerful leader or personality (Timasheff, 1967:181). Weber believed that charismatic leaders emerged at historical periods when traditional or rational bureaucratic authority was waning (Miller, 1968:16). It appears that while Findhorn in the past was charismatically based, it generally no longer operates this way. A sociologically fascinating event seems to have happened: the charisma of the founding fathers (and mothers) seems to have passed to all of the members of the community. As stated earlier, of the founding charismatic leaders, only the Caddys and Sir George Trevelyan remain, and they are traveling much of the year. It is my belief the community would continue thriving were the Caddys or Trevelyan suddenly to leave permanently. In other words the facts point to their role as largely symbolic; they have voluntarily and consciously turned over everyday authority to the community at large (Eileen because her voice told her to), and the members have easily accepted their new role.

That Findhorn is not a rational–rule based collective is best illustrated by the fact that there seems to be only a handful of formal rules with general applicability to all. The few I could discover as widely shared were: to enter the community one had to declare a definite spiritual quest and desire, 2) no smoking inside buildings, 3) shoes are to be removed before entering the sanctuary, 4) don’t enter the sanctuary after the red light is on, 5) drugs are not to be used (other than a limited usage of alcohol and tobacco, based on person preference). Interestingly, and in character, these rules were not written down (at least where I could find them) and had no sanctions connected with them. The presumption created by this was that the rules were expected to be followed, thus there would be no problem. My guess is that a violation of any of these rules would not bring forth a strong sanction at first; where violation was chronic, sanctions would likely be decided by an appropriate group of people. In one theoretical sense, Findhorn should not continue to function as a group in that it has a remarkable dearth of rules–and those few which exist cover a narrow range of action. In addition, authority and decisions are typically not based on a rational, bureaucratic procedure, nor do they come from any rigid or well-established hierarchy, for such does not exist.

Finally, Findhorn’s internal authority is not based on tradition–quite the contrary. As stated earlier, the group calls itself a “new age” community, and has constructed a new theoretical scaffolding to fit the new era. (It could be argued with some force that their world view is a lunatics mix of shop worn ideas; however I believe it is more accurate to say that in blending ideas they’ve come up with a new synthesis or more possibly, a new application of these ideas.) The community wastes little time revering or reacting to ghosts of the past (they seem to use precious little energy in resisting anything, rather they are very oriented to the present, with an occasional eye to future nows.) The notion of precedent, so powerful in many organizations (our legal system for example) is a past decision with carry over clout into today–that is, tradition based. Findhorn seemed to have few binding precedents. Action was based on decisions flowing out of the now.

Using Weber’s model, it appears that Findhorn’s authority base does not fit well into any of the three types discussed by Weber.[1] I believe an understanding of Findhorn’s mode of operation and authority requires a fourth model–one I’ve elected to call personal-present authority. These terms were selected to show the contrast with Weber’s types: traditional authority, for example, requires the individual to look to the past for direction, rational authority requires a person to look outside to rational rules organized around a hierarchy, while charismatic authority requires the individual to look at a powerful person outside of himself. Personal-present authority, occurs when the individual sees himself as the basis of authority and takes responsibility for his own decisions in matters pertaining mainly to himself. Because he is not hemmed in by a hierarchy, charismatic leaders or tradition, the range of personal authority is greatly extended. Where decisions affect the lives of others, the individual is still the basis of authority operating in relation with other such individuals, until a collective decision is reached–at which point the group can be seen as the authority. The group is given respect and authority because the individuals want it this way, not because the group demands it. The locus of authority flows from the person to the collective and back in a seemingly easy fashion. As stated earlier, precedent and tradition seem to carry little weight; the belief and practice seems to be that because individuals grow and change daily, each day is a new day; thus issues which are seemingly the same on the surface, may lead to quite different decisions or action a day later. For example in regard to admitting an individual as a permanent member of the community, the decision was based on each individual’s case, because each person was seen as unique. Rules about previous decisions (precedents), rules about categories of individuals (social class, religious, financial support, etc.) did not appear to carry significant weight. To try to summarize, what I see is a very subtle and complex decision-making and authority-based process: decisions are made by individuals or groups and are based in the present (on a day-to-day basis) as each new problem or case presents itself.

[1] This observation gives some credence to Findhorn’s claim to be a new age community.