Of Conversations, Communes and Freedom
by When you control what a man eats, what he wears, whom he marries (or does not marry), and what he knows…
One summer afternoon, I was sitting at the kitchen table with my aunt, nibbling on one of her excellent cookies, sipping green tea. We had been talking of this and that; I’m not quite sure how the topic came up–probably some silly thing I or my ex had done, but that’s not really the issue. “Sex,” said my aunt, “why do religions always want to change sexual customs?”
It was a good question, to be sure, one I have pondered since. Having thought it over for some years at various times (like while weeding or washing dishes), I have concluded that the reason most religions develop some sort of policy on sexual congress is because there isn’t much in the world that is more basic to our existence. It is true that as individuals we may be able to survive without it; food, shelter and personal entertainment may suffice. However, as a species, it is essential.
I was reminded of this while watching a documentary on the Shakers. As many of you probably know, this interesting sect devoted their lives to Christian living, making each act of their existence one of humble devotion. Because of this, Shaker furniture, architecture and other artifacts from the movements heyday epitomize functional beauty. The members were celibate; when adults entered the community they gave up all their worldly goods to the shared pool of resources. However, many of them were introduced to the community as orphaned children. 
Image via Wikipedia
Since the members of the Shaker community did not marry or in any other way create progeny in the normal way of things, adopting abandoned or otherwise uncared-for children was one way of expanding their numbers. As child placement regulations and as government rules about so-called “secret societies” became more strict, children were no longer placed with the Shaker communities, and adults could not be legally constrained to relinquish all their worldly goods. The world changed, and the Shaker communities became increasingly smaller. According to Wikipedia, as of 2009, the United Society of Believers had dwindled to three practicing Shakers living at Sabbathday Lake Shaker Village. The website sets forth regulations for visitors, as well as books and merchandise for sale.
During the expansion of the Shaker communities, regulations went well beyond separation of genders and abstinence from sexual intercourse. There were regulations for how food should be served, how meat and bread should be cut, even the precise steps for getting dressed for a busy schedule of work and worship that lasted from before sun-up till after dark. The regimen did not appeal to everyone; yet it was remarkably successful for quite some time, Shaker farms and industries becoming models of cleanliness and successful business practices.
Liked it
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Post Commentken bultman
On January 29, 2010 at 6:28 am
A very interesting read. You and your aunt are great conversationalists. Most would talk of crocheting doilies or canning peaches.
Christine Ramsay
On January 29, 2010 at 7:34 am
Wow! That is quite an article to come from a fairly innocent comment made by your aunt. A really interesting read.
Christine
Daisy Peasblossom
On January 29, 2010 at 8:04 am
Ken, Aunt crochets, I’ve been known to can peaches; but we are both products of the dysfunctional chaos that was my grandmother’s house; education was our way OUT.
csr20008
On January 29, 2010 at 4:50 pm
Interesting post !
Ruby Hawk
On January 29, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Daisy, this was an interesting subject, it does make you wonder how religion got mixed up with a natural function like sex.
Trakiya
On January 30, 2010 at 5:52 am
Very , Very good article
JFHickey
On February 3, 2010 at 9:18 am
You say, on Stephen Gaskin:
Gaskin had noticed that a lot of his students were dropping out and congregating on the two famed streets in San Francisco. Upon investigation, he began teaching alternative life-style classes such as Tai Chi and Taoism. After a series of lectures, he noticed that the Haight-Ashbury scene was beginning to become a society of hard-drug users. He and 350 other idealists set out to create a “better way”. The Farm had a different set of ideals from either the Shakers or Oneidans. Growing out of the chaos of war, civil unrest, growing commercialism and general unhappiness of the late 1960’s, the members were focused on the ideals of vegetarianism
and on devising ways ecologically sound ways to feed a hungry world.
You haven’t cited any sources for your understanding of Gaskin and the Farm, but I urge you to get better information. Your implication that Gaskin and the farm people eschewed all drugs is wrong. They, including Gaskin, were often using psychedelics together in Gaskin’s Monday Night Class gatherings, which consistently numbered above a thousand people. Later at the farm, as I understand it, they decided to eschew any drugs which were not organic. Thus they still used cannibis, and perhaps peyote and mushrooms. Pychedelics were at the center of their work. They used psychedelics as a tool to understand human psychology, including our deep, shared, usually unconscious, understanding of our place in nature and our intuitions of the divine.
Daisy Peasblossom
On February 3, 2010 at 11:53 pm
JF, those are cogent comments and well thought out. As to where I got my information, much of it was taken from the Farm’s website. You are correct in your assessment that I was doing fast, surface research; however, perhaps I should clarify a couple of things. Although I have never been into the drug scene myself, I was a college student in the early 1970’s. Even at that time, many people did not consider peyote or cannabis “hard drugs”. That term was reserved for heroin, cocaine, and morphine. The ideals of vegetarianism and efforts to “feed the world” are not incompatible with the type of culture you are describing. Let it be noted that ideals and goals should not be confused with ability to actualize, which, from my personal standpoint, go quite a bit better without drugs. May I point out that there were some aspects of the Shakers and Oneidans I didn’t explore either; most “idealistic” groups have a down-side of one sort or another.
JFHickey
On February 4, 2010 at 9:02 am
Thanks for responding. I wanted to emphasize that I don’t consider the use of psychedelics by Gaskin a “down-side.” His many books full of wisdom, appreciated by millions, are explicitly grounded in the disciplined use of psychedelics, just as the wisdom of the Greeks was furthered through the potion of the Eleusinion Mysteries and the Vedic scriptures were inspired by “soma.” The reckless use of psychedelics certainly has a down-side, and even the disciplined use of psychedelics can result in some problems, but it does not, I believe, constitute a down-side to what he and his fellow “hippies” have done. It’s pretty central to whatever good we have done.