A Brief Historical Perspective

When Cornelia asked me to look into some archival material that she was interested in adding to COIF’s store of knowledge on this subject, I came across a document that listed various challenges that the community was facing . There were over a dozen topics under three headings – Economy & Development, Identity & Relationship, and Governance. Below are those listed in that last category. As you can see, they are hardly unfamiliar, although the date the document was produced was the 1st of May 2012. (To read about the work at the time see Round Table on Governance 2011/12)

  • Non-inclusive structure of the Foundation
  • Lack of tangible benefits of NFA membership
  • Those who live at The Park but who are not either landowners or members of the Foundation have no genuine say in its organisation.
  • Perception that too few people hold too many key positions.
  • The existing structures at The Park are complex.

The document was modified for a meeting the following month and a few items were added, including “Perception that money gives you influence and power.”

The obvious question that arises is then ‘Why are these issues so difficult to resolve?’

Some Observations

There would seem to be at least three main reasons for this state of affairs.

  1. As is the wider world, some things are subject to a form of democratic control, but many are not.
  2. Grappling with complex issues of this nature is probably part of the curriculum.
  3. Our expectations are unrealistic.

How then can we proceed in these circumstances, aiming as best we can to resolve whatever tensions exist, while at the same time recognising that there are always likely to be challenges that cannot be fully resolved? Here are some suggestions.

  1. Let us temper our desire for simplicity with a recognition that the world is complex. If we are indeed to fully emerge from the phase of ‘community’ to that of a village and beyond it is likely that our opportunities for work, social interaction, spiritual practice etc. will increase in number. Our decision-making procedures will no doubt change in response to that and I hope they will be effective – but we are unlikely to become somewhere with a single set of decision-makers taking responsibility for a very wide range of activities. That is what the Foundation circa 1985 was and few of us would wish to return there. Indeed the Foundation slowly released that role over time in part because having so much under one roof was ‘too complex’.
  2. There are several ‘communities’ that would like to have a greater say in our collective affairs. For example, Park residents, community members who live elsewhere locally and our international community – and within each one there will be sub-sets of interest groups. There is no one single identity for our collective life. This need not prevent us from trying to improve matters but this should be tempered by realism.
  3. There is a big difference between having a voice and having a vote. Being consulted is not the same as being asked to decide and you are unlikely to be asked to decide on something unless you have some kind of formal authority to do so. Let’s not confuse these two things (as we so often have in the past).
  4. Voting may prove to be necessary from time to time but we should aim a lot higher. Alastair McIntosh has, with excellent timing, had some very useful things to say about that recently. We should of course strive to avoid the kind of process which can, on occasion, result in a tiny number of objections holding up progress. Nonetheless, it is a key part of our history and culture that we usually see votes on key subjects in which a majority overrules a minority as a kind of failure on the relatively rare occasions when it happens.
  5. Above all, collaborate. I am sure we can, as individuals and organisations, find ways to meaningfully work with one another in a spirit of oneness and harmony. Indeed, if we cannot then the entire experiment we are living in may be relatively short-lived. Perhaps I should say more about this but I am pretty certain that most of us do not have great difficulty in telling the difference between collaboration and confrontation and between empathy and callous indifference.

Yours hopefully,

Alex Walker September 2023