Publisher's Note

What's Left When Balancing Rights?

By Laird Sandhill

L ET'S TALK RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES. For both individuals and groups.

As far as we know the communities movement has never looked at this topic as a whole, and this issue of Communities   opens the discussion. Our theme is "cults," and one definition of those is groups which interfere with the appropriate rights of individual members.

Discussion of "cults" typically begins with the spotlight on individual rights and community responsibilities, and this issue of the magazine welcomes that examination. However, we don't stop there. We also turn the spotlight around and look at community rights and individual responsibilities.

In the past few years, Amitai Etzione's Communitarian movement has made a splash in the national media, drawing attention to the idea that American culture has gone overboard in celebrating individual rights, adding a twist to what John Kennedy admonished us to do more than 30 years ago: ask not what your community can do for you; ask what you can do for your community.

Considering all this, we believe it's well worth our time to acknowledge philosophical differences within the communities movement and do our best to clarify what they are. This leads to the challenge of balancing. Looking around we can see that different groups identify different fulcrums, the points at which members agree that rights and responsibilities are in equilibrium. And the differences don't end there--groups with a strong identity often add weight to both  sides of the seesaw, further complicating the task of understanding fully what others have chosen.

One of the principal ways members of intentional communities differ from people in the mainstream culture is that community members are prepared to accept additional responsibilities to the community--whether intentional or otherwise--in exchange for an expansion of individual rights (like health benefits, childcare support, employment opportunities, spiritual nourishment, control of one's time, expansion of options, guaranteed coverage of basic needs, etc).

Noting these complexities, we can make some important observations. First, where the fulcrum point is ambiguous, or there is pressure to accept a balance that is uncomfortable, abuse can occur within   the group. This is generally what is suspected when a group is labeled "cult."

Second, a different form of abuse can occur, brought by people outside the group. The main message of this Communities   focus on "cults" is that the outside kind of abuse, usually brought by anti-cult activists, is far more common.

Here's how it works. People operating under one set of agreements about rights and responsibilities (who generally live outside community) will often apply their notion of what's balanced to what's happening in another situation (such as inside a particular community). Not liking what they see, the outside observers will label the community a "cult"--without realizing that people living there have freely and clearly chosen a different fulcrum for balancing rights and responsibilities. Hopefully, the accounts we present here will make clear the dangers of carelessly applying the values of one group to the practices of another.

Making this point exactly, our cornerstone article in this issue is an investigative report by Albert Bates and The Natural Rights Center, analyzing the tragic events of the Branch Davidians at Waco. This chilling examination will show that, carried to the extreme, our government will even kill its own law-abiding citizens to impose its own sense of what is right. It will show a pattern of determined refusal on the part of government officials to consider evidence which did not support their taking confrontative, violent action. While thankfully rare, it's sobering to realize that this kind of misunderstanding can happen at all.

Here is a summary of what this issue concludes about "cults."

• There are dangers inherent in "us/them" dynamics. Communities which develop strong identities by labeling all non-members as "other" run the risk of misunderstandings which can end, as in Waco, in tragedy.
• It is much easier to agree on the principle of non-coercion, than to apply that principle with discernment. A community's action--like spanking children--may be clearly out of bounds according to one set of values, yet viewed as loving, necessary discipline in another.
• A community's lack of openness and disclosure often leads to mistrust by outsiders, and discourages them from thoroughly examining the community's perspectives before drawing conclusions. Abuse within communities does occur, but almost certainly less frequently than is claimed by outsiders.
• Mainstream media tends to play up the danger of "cults," yet the evidence shows that the bigger danger is anti-cult activists who often engage in the very practices they condemn--distorting the truth, traumatizing children, making sweeping condemnations unsubstantiated by firm evidence, and otherwise interfering with open communication.

Most articles in this issue of Communities  focus on groups who suffered under the label of "cult." We offer relatively few accounts of members feeling mistreated by their communities. This mix of articles does not necessarily represent our sense of a balanced picture of all  that could be said.

Rights and responsibilities affect everyone ... let us hear how our discussion about them affects you.

Communities magazine is published by the nonprofit Fellowship for Intentional Community (FIC). Laird Sandhill is the FIC's Publication Manager.