photo by Janaya Dasiuk
For those drawn to intentional communities, the ideal often involves egalitarian governance and shared ownership. However, the reality is that not everyone has the same financial resources or access to credit. This creates a need for flexible structures that can accommodate a diverse range of members.
Balancing Equity and Practicality in Ownership & Governance
Some cooperative communities offer graduated levels of buy-in, where increased financial contribution leads to a greater say in decision-making. Options like work-contribution contracts or rent-to-own agreements can also pave the way to co-ownership for those without immediate wealth.
Sometimes, individuals might have wealth but lack the capacity to manage it effectively. In these cases, it can be understandable, and even necessary, for a single individual or a specific group to maintain ownership. This approach keeps the majority of decision-making power in the hands of a leader or a formal group like a non-profit board. This structure has historically served to protect the community’s core culture and purpose from a potentially rogue leader, especially when other members have made long-standing commitments and contributions.
Beneficiaries of Centralized Leadership
A non-egalitarian intentional community can offer significant benefits, particularly for disadvantaged individuals in need of affordable housing or other necessities. By providing shelter and support, these communities can help people achieve stability. Over time, as trust and capacity grow, these individuals may be able to transition to a more participatory role in community governance, even if they couldn’t initially. For examples, see the Care and Social Safety Net community types.
Centralized leadership can also be beneficial for individuals who inherit wealth but struggle with managing it. For example, parents of an only child with emotional or mental impairments might contract with an intentional community to provide lifelong housing and meals. This community would act as a substitute family, offering a stable environment. Ideally, even if membership isn’t at risk, such individuals would still adhere to the same community rules and work contribution requirements as other members to qualify for the same privileges. This model could be extended to others with similar needs who don’t have the benefit of an inheritance, but may qualify for government or non-profit funding.
Pros and Cons of Centralized Leadership
When shared power isn’t a viable option, it’s crucial for leaders to wield power wisely and transparently. As community leader Paul Wheaton has discussed, centralized power in an intentional community can offer certain advantages, such as streamlined decision-making and quicker action.
However, the main drawback is the potential for centralized leadership to become overbearing or even abusive. It’s vital to have checks and balances in place to mitigate this risk. You can learn more about these dynamics on related pages.
- Leadership Skills and Principles
- Common autocratic governance mishaps at an anonymous IC
- The Accountability Meeting & Power Dynamics
Examples of Centralized Leadership
Allen Butcher refers to non-egalitarian communities as “class-harmony communities.” He highlights examples that feature distinct owner and renter classes. One such instance is Ganas on Staten Island, NY, which has a core group of 10 owners and approximately 70 renters living in three apartment buildings. Another example he mentions is Dry Gulch Ecovillage in Denver.
Understanding these varied approaches can help your community design a governance and ownership model that best fits its unique mission and the needs of its members.
Video: Central leader communities with “Evil Dictator” Paul Wheaton