DISMANTLING "THE FORTRESS"
Inside the urban kibbutz
INTRO
The past few decades have seen a rise in urban kibbutzim across Israel and North America. These intentional communities seek to update the traditional kibbutzim that emerged in the early years of Jewish settlement in Palestine, and to provide contemporary alternatives to capitalist modes of interaction. They are most commonly established as an affront to "The Fortress"--a term we have adapted to refer to all that defies or hinders revolution. There is danger in definition, in borders that cement inescapability. This danger is present both within and without; urban kibbutzim must not rely on "...definitions...designed to keep anything slightly different outside," while simultaneously crafting spaces that dismantle a society where "difference is guarded and protected" [1]. Difference is a careful art, revolutionary until it becomes rigid.
The past few decades have seen a rise in urban kibbutzim across Israel and North America. These intentional communities seek to update the traditional kibbutzim that emerged in the early years of Jewish settlement in Palestine, and to provide contemporary alternatives to capitalist modes of interaction. They are most commonly established as an affront to "The Fortress"--a term we have adapted to refer to all that defies or hinders revolution. There is danger in definition, in borders that cement inescapability. This danger is present both within and without; urban kibbutzim must not rely on "...definitions...designed to keep anything slightly different outside," while simultaneously crafting spaces that dismantle a society where "difference is guarded and protected" [1]. Difference is a careful art, revolutionary until it becomes rigid.
"i am not saying that we do not need definitions; i am saying that definitions should not be a fortress designed to keep anything slightly different outside [2]"
Before we continue, what exactly are intentional communities? While they can come in many different forms; loosely they are organized around the following set of principles:
While this definition encompasses many urban kibbutzim, Lyman Tower Sargent importantly recognizes that this definition is far from all-encompassing of all intentional communities. Moving forward we will operate on the agreement that urban kibbutzim, at minimum share the distinguishing qualities of:
- The group in question must be gathered on the basis of some kind of purpose or vision, and see itself as set apart from mainstream society to some degree. Intentional communities are not simply group living situations; they are group living situations that have specific purposes and offer alternatives to societal business as usual. …
- The group must live together on property that has some kind of clear physical commonality to it. …
- The group must have some kind of financial or material sharing, some kind of economic commonality. …
- The group must have a membership of at least five adults, not all of whom are related by blood or marriage, which should be who have chosen voluntarily to join in common cause [emphases added]. [3]
While this definition encompasses many urban kibbutzim, Lyman Tower Sargent importantly recognizes that this definition is far from all-encompassing of all intentional communities. Moving forward we will operate on the agreement that urban kibbutzim, at minimum share the distinguishing qualities of:
-shared purpose/vision
-economic co-dependence
-deconstructing conventional use of space
EVOLVING FROM THE PAST: THE LEGACY OF RURAL KIBBUTZIM
The first Kibbutz— Degania— was founded in 1910. Hundreds of other kibbutzim were built over the following decades across what would become the state of Israel. Founded on ideals of socialism and egalitarianism, kibbutz members shared bank accounts, land ownership, the abolition of the division of labor, and responsibility for members’ children. The settlements were ideologically tied to agriculture as the foundation of society and strongly opposed to the introduction of industry. The kibbutz was designed to produce “a ‘New Man’— the pioneer. One of the leading kibbutz-pedagogues, Mordechai Segal, described this aim as follows: ‘We have conducted our education in line with our kibbutz man, who will be-- as the result of his education-- fit to go on with kibbutz life (1965, p. 3)”. The kibbutz movement leaders envisioned a utopia where the man would embody the space and the space would embody the man [4]. Wide open communal space, multifunctional structures, and spatial flexibility were at the heart of the kibbutz's architectural ideal. Images At Right: (top) Kibbutz Degania Dining Hall; (bottom) Children at the Kibbutz. Images from Zvuvi's Israel [4]. http://zvuvisisrael.blogspot.com/2010/04/first-kibbutz-just-celebrated-its-100th.html.
Image Below: Diagram displaying classic kibbutz spatial model, with public spaces for dining and gathering surrounding a large central lawn. http://www.deconcrete.org/2010/09/01/kibbutz-archipelagos/. |
The Kibbutz ideal was, and continues to be, embedded within the utopian tradition in Zionism. For example, one of the founders of Labor Zionism, Moses Hess, imagined the establishment of socialist associations (Gesellschaften) in all economic fields--namely agriculture, industry and commerce (distribution)--which would be an “integral part of the socialist revival of humankind that would bring about the abolition of all forms of exploitation and domination and establish material and cultural equality between all nations and races” [5]. Theodor Herzl, the founder of political Zionism, similarly imagined Israel as “not a state, but a large cooperative society" [6]. The emergence of this cooperative society was to be facilitated by the transition from intimate, "small kvutzot" [groups], to more robust, inclusive "large kvutzot". Shlomo Lavi, an early kibbutz member, wrote: "You, the members of the small Kvutza aspire to intimacy, closed doors, we on the other hand, want space; for you the circle, for us the line. You settle for agriculture, we want to merge village and town; you choose and pick members, we receive everybody [7]." In 1927, dozens of kibbutzim came together to form several kibbutz movements, such as Kibbutz Meuchad (United Kibbutz) and Kibbutz Artzi (Countrywide Kibbutz), rejecting both the depleted agricultural village and the polluted, violent, capitalist city, in hopes of paving the way for mass participation in the struggle of the working class. Citing the Communist Manifesto, that said "We want to unite the work in the city and in the work in the village," Kibbutz Meuchad's mission statement included: "We want to build a settlement that is neither a city nor a village [8]."
The transition to the "large kvutza" required a reimagining of architectural forms. Samuel Bickels, one of the most well-regarded kibbutz architects of this period along with Richard Kaufmann, imagined a kibbutz with a nuclear form: an agora as the cultural center with a large periphery that would enable maximum expansion beyond the center. As Israel's population grew, this architectural form would make room for more and more people to integrate into the socialist economy [9].
But this socialist dream did not last. Since the 1980s, the state of Israel has increasingly abandoned these ideals, as well as the attendant welfare systems and vibrant Labor movements, in favor of neoliberalism. Over the past quarter-century, most of Israel’s 270 kibbutzim have abandoned the socialism of its founding, replacing these ideals with the new “privatized” kibbutz [10]. In many of these kibbutzim, the only remnants of communalism are communal dining rooms. Kibbutz members often work in nearby cities and return at night. Large social gaps have emerged: in the most differential kibbutzim, managers may earn $5000-$8000 a month while unskilled workers earn $800-$1000 a month (close to the legal minimum wage) [11]. The privatization of the kibbutz is now classified and defined by the National Planning Authority, which encompasses the physical configuration, zoning, infrastructure, and future planning and development of the 'Revised Kibbutz'. As Freddy Kahana writes: “The concept of the kibbutz as the initiator of a new and alternate society was never effectively translated into spatial terms. Kaufmann’s iconic plan for Ein Harod and Tel Yosef included all the elements of an alternative spatial entity 'Neither Village nor City,' but the idea never developed beyond its embryonic stage, the kibbutz, as such, turned inwards and developed into the ubiquitous autarkic “settlement” [12].
The common glorification of the kibbutz as an entirely egalitarian community must also be challenged by the kibbutz’s intersection with the State's military and political history: kibbutzim were built along the state's edges to protect the borders and create a contiguous control over the land. Morever, some kibbutzim have been used as a means of displacement of Palestinian residents. For example, Kibbutz Lavi, near the town of Tiberias and the Sea of Galilee, lies on top of the ruins of the Palestinian village of Lubya [13]. Additionally, some kibbutzim have claimed land in the Occupied Territories— illegal under international law. For example, 11,000 Israelis live in 17 kibbutzim that form part of the Emek HaYarden Regional Council in Israel [14]. Furthermore, the kibbutz ideal of total inclusivity was left unfulfilled, as some kibbutzim elected to only accept Jewish members.
The transition to the "large kvutza" required a reimagining of architectural forms. Samuel Bickels, one of the most well-regarded kibbutz architects of this period along with Richard Kaufmann, imagined a kibbutz with a nuclear form: an agora as the cultural center with a large periphery that would enable maximum expansion beyond the center. As Israel's population grew, this architectural form would make room for more and more people to integrate into the socialist economy [9].
But this socialist dream did not last. Since the 1980s, the state of Israel has increasingly abandoned these ideals, as well as the attendant welfare systems and vibrant Labor movements, in favor of neoliberalism. Over the past quarter-century, most of Israel’s 270 kibbutzim have abandoned the socialism of its founding, replacing these ideals with the new “privatized” kibbutz [10]. In many of these kibbutzim, the only remnants of communalism are communal dining rooms. Kibbutz members often work in nearby cities and return at night. Large social gaps have emerged: in the most differential kibbutzim, managers may earn $5000-$8000 a month while unskilled workers earn $800-$1000 a month (close to the legal minimum wage) [11]. The privatization of the kibbutz is now classified and defined by the National Planning Authority, which encompasses the physical configuration, zoning, infrastructure, and future planning and development of the 'Revised Kibbutz'. As Freddy Kahana writes: “The concept of the kibbutz as the initiator of a new and alternate society was never effectively translated into spatial terms. Kaufmann’s iconic plan for Ein Harod and Tel Yosef included all the elements of an alternative spatial entity 'Neither Village nor City,' but the idea never developed beyond its embryonic stage, the kibbutz, as such, turned inwards and developed into the ubiquitous autarkic “settlement” [12].
The common glorification of the kibbutz as an entirely egalitarian community must also be challenged by the kibbutz’s intersection with the State's military and political history: kibbutzim were built along the state's edges to protect the borders and create a contiguous control over the land. Morever, some kibbutzim have been used as a means of displacement of Palestinian residents. For example, Kibbutz Lavi, near the town of Tiberias and the Sea of Galilee, lies on top of the ruins of the Palestinian village of Lubya [13]. Additionally, some kibbutzim have claimed land in the Occupied Territories— illegal under international law. For example, 11,000 Israelis live in 17 kibbutzim that form part of the Emek HaYarden Regional Council in Israel [14]. Furthermore, the kibbutz ideal of total inclusivity was left unfulfilled, as some kibbutzim elected to only accept Jewish members.
The remains of the Lubya Cemetary, at Kibbutz Lavi http://www.zochrot.org/en/village/49244
THE RISE OF URBAN KIBBUTZIM
In the wake of the crumbling rural kibbutz movement came a return to the urban. In the 1980s, a number of "development towns" sprung up across the country, adopting the 'kibbutz' label but basing their livelihoods on social and educational services rather than agriculture. Kahana refers to this phenomenon as an "instant Urban Kibbutz Movement," in which kibbutzim became urban by virtue of their suburban location [15].
However, in recent years, a branch of urban kibbutzim has reintroduced a more intentional ideology to the movement. While the initial revolutionary zeal of the rural kibbutz became “stagnant” and “overly nostalgic” with time, In the wake of the crumbling rural kibbutz movement came a return to the city. Unlike the utopian-esque communities that preceded them, whose initial revolutionary zeal became “stagnant” and “overly nostalgic” with time, the urban kibbutzim draw meaning and purpose from their placement in the direct center of the imperfect societies that they are trying to change, according to urban kibbutz founder, Daniel Roth [16]. Their mission is to spatially manifest socialism with a focus on “ending the alienation[s]” found in the society within and around the kibbutz, and in doing so, challenging the hegemony of privatized space in ordering and dictating daily life [17]. In other words, urban kibbutz advocates would maintain that the real revolution will happen by working within the system, instead of outside of it.
With this shift from rural to urban, the focus on agriculture has been replaced by “social work” in the community, with human society acting as the new fields to be cared for and cultivated by urban kibbutz members [18]. It is members’ shared values of tikkun adam (healing of humanity/the Self) and tikkun olam (healing of the world) and joint political struggle for the liberation of all peoples that defines and unites the community, rather than simply sharing an apartment.
In the wake of the crumbling rural kibbutz movement came a return to the urban. In the 1980s, a number of "development towns" sprung up across the country, adopting the 'kibbutz' label but basing their livelihoods on social and educational services rather than agriculture. Kahana refers to this phenomenon as an "instant Urban Kibbutz Movement," in which kibbutzim became urban by virtue of their suburban location [15].
However, in recent years, a branch of urban kibbutzim has reintroduced a more intentional ideology to the movement. While the initial revolutionary zeal of the rural kibbutz became “stagnant” and “overly nostalgic” with time, In the wake of the crumbling rural kibbutz movement came a return to the city. Unlike the utopian-esque communities that preceded them, whose initial revolutionary zeal became “stagnant” and “overly nostalgic” with time, the urban kibbutzim draw meaning and purpose from their placement in the direct center of the imperfect societies that they are trying to change, according to urban kibbutz founder, Daniel Roth [16]. Their mission is to spatially manifest socialism with a focus on “ending the alienation[s]” found in the society within and around the kibbutz, and in doing so, challenging the hegemony of privatized space in ordering and dictating daily life [17]. In other words, urban kibbutz advocates would maintain that the real revolution will happen by working within the system, instead of outside of it.
With this shift from rural to urban, the focus on agriculture has been replaced by “social work” in the community, with human society acting as the new fields to be cared for and cultivated by urban kibbutz members [18]. It is members’ shared values of tikkun adam (healing of humanity/the Self) and tikkun olam (healing of the world) and joint political struggle for the liberation of all peoples that defines and unites the community, rather than simply sharing an apartment.
WHERE ARE THEY FOUND?
|
Map of known urban kibbutz locations in Israel. Compiled by Joanna Kramer
|
"Outrage at injustice and alternative ideas have long animated the quest for social change. We cannot cynically dismiss either"
SPATIALLY MANIFESTING SOCIALIST IDEOLOGY IN AN IMPERFECT ENVIRONMENT
Cities are born from thought. As Henri Lefebvre confirms, “philosophers have thought the city: they have brought to language and concept urban life” [19]. Space cannot be divorced from the ideologies that structure it, and even more so from the social systems which produce these very ideologies. As Lefebvre further writes, “any space implies, contains, and dissimulates social relationships--and this despite the fact that a space is not a thing but rather a set of relations between things (objects and products)” [20]. Currently, most urban spaces are structured to prioritize exchange values--the commodification--of the city; what it would look like if “the three fundamental theoretical concepts of structure, function, and form..” were directed to produce “...places where exchange would not go through exchange value, commerce and profit” [21]? Just as thought experiments and social hierarchies drove the formation of the city as it stands today, so, too, can critical theory be deployed to imagine new spatial realities.
Spatial reimagination is a lucrative project. Lefebvre pointedly asks: “Who is not a utopian today” [22]? Aspirations to this idealized state often instigate and inform the the development of an intentional community, including the rural kibbutzim. Sargent proposes the idea of “utopian energy,” a force that ebbs and flows along with the progression of the community; he conceives of it as an energy that can be “displaced” or dissipated, as is natural with motivation for any project, yet never disappears entirely [23]. Utopian vision therefore always remains a central organizing tenet to these communities, even if the degree to which it is present may vary over time. As Harvey writes: “...we cannot do without utopian plans and ideals of justice. They are indispensable for motivation and for action. Outrage at injustice and alternative ideas have long animated the quest for social change. We cannot cynically dismiss either” [24].
In embracing the freedom of utopian thinking, the constraints of contemporary power structures cannot be neglected. In his article “Seeking Spatial Justice,” Edward Soja illustrates how power is inscribed into the urban landscape, a phenomenon he terms “geographies of power” [25]. This power is enacted through both the planning process--who has the authority to make decisions--and the implementation--how physical structures act to marginalize or suppress residents of the city based on their identities. Can residents access spaces to congregate? To organize? To protest? Or is space instead deployed by the State to organize and control, to divide and separate [26]?
This maze of “oppressive geographies” found within the city manifests on multiple levels, spanning the literal built environment and the figurative one, as well as the plane of our own imagination and thought [27]. The urban kibbutzim exist as a challenge to this reality; by examining these systems of oppression and by revealing their hypocrisies, the kibbutzim can identify the tools and possibilities for liberation from their hegemonic reign. Each intentional decision made by the urban kibbutzim, from their location in the city to the guidelines of their communal space, is carefully constructed to reflect their values of a non-oppressive society. Below follows an examination of each of these components.
Cities are born from thought. As Henri Lefebvre confirms, “philosophers have thought the city: they have brought to language and concept urban life” [19]. Space cannot be divorced from the ideologies that structure it, and even more so from the social systems which produce these very ideologies. As Lefebvre further writes, “any space implies, contains, and dissimulates social relationships--and this despite the fact that a space is not a thing but rather a set of relations between things (objects and products)” [20]. Currently, most urban spaces are structured to prioritize exchange values--the commodification--of the city; what it would look like if “the three fundamental theoretical concepts of structure, function, and form..” were directed to produce “...places where exchange would not go through exchange value, commerce and profit” [21]? Just as thought experiments and social hierarchies drove the formation of the city as it stands today, so, too, can critical theory be deployed to imagine new spatial realities.
Spatial reimagination is a lucrative project. Lefebvre pointedly asks: “Who is not a utopian today” [22]? Aspirations to this idealized state often instigate and inform the the development of an intentional community, including the rural kibbutzim. Sargent proposes the idea of “utopian energy,” a force that ebbs and flows along with the progression of the community; he conceives of it as an energy that can be “displaced” or dissipated, as is natural with motivation for any project, yet never disappears entirely [23]. Utopian vision therefore always remains a central organizing tenet to these communities, even if the degree to which it is present may vary over time. As Harvey writes: “...we cannot do without utopian plans and ideals of justice. They are indispensable for motivation and for action. Outrage at injustice and alternative ideas have long animated the quest for social change. We cannot cynically dismiss either” [24].
In embracing the freedom of utopian thinking, the constraints of contemporary power structures cannot be neglected. In his article “Seeking Spatial Justice,” Edward Soja illustrates how power is inscribed into the urban landscape, a phenomenon he terms “geographies of power” [25]. This power is enacted through both the planning process--who has the authority to make decisions--and the implementation--how physical structures act to marginalize or suppress residents of the city based on their identities. Can residents access spaces to congregate? To organize? To protest? Or is space instead deployed by the State to organize and control, to divide and separate [26]?
This maze of “oppressive geographies” found within the city manifests on multiple levels, spanning the literal built environment and the figurative one, as well as the plane of our own imagination and thought [27]. The urban kibbutzim exist as a challenge to this reality; by examining these systems of oppression and by revealing their hypocrisies, the kibbutzim can identify the tools and possibilities for liberation from their hegemonic reign. Each intentional decision made by the urban kibbutzim, from their location in the city to the guidelines of their communal space, is carefully constructed to reflect their values of a non-oppressive society. Below follows an examination of each of these components.
ENDING ALIENATION THROUGH COMMUNAL SPACE
Urban kibbutzim are intentional living communities which promote deep and vulnerable interpersonal relationships to combat the “loneliness, alienation, and competition” replete in society [28]. Their space and activities are all structured to achieve this end; perhaps most prominent is the shared bank account, which necessitates a level of trust and intimacy not found in many other roommate situations. Furthermore, food and household items are bought cooperatively and chores are distributed evenly, all to ensure that the space is collectively owned and managed; through this arrangement, each member is valued equally in the the literal sustenance of the urban kibbutz.
This co-dependent structure is born out of a belief that “...the presence of others is a key to the freedom of the human being...that we need close partners who love us and see the goodness in us in order to believe in ourselves and dare to create the things we dream of [29].” Each meal shared and each deposit or withdrawal from the communal bank account represent another link formed on the chain of trust that connects the members to each other. It is from this basis of mutual support that members can advance their goals that perhaps span beyond their own circle of intimate trust, creating a place to which they can return each night and replenish the energy needed to face a capitalist, racist, and patriarchal world in the morning. If “collective action is forever more effective, meaningful and enjoyable than individual action, and that the world is changed by movements, not by personas,” then it follows that the same prioritization of the collective over the individual would extend to living arrangements [30].
In an interview conducted by Karen Isaacs with Ganas, a Staten Island-based commune, in 2007, she uncovered a similar sentiment amongst its members. As she paraphrases: "The way you live affects the way you act in the world as an individual. When you live alone you tend to become very individualistic. When you live in community you are constantly involved in the practice of taking others into consideration" [31]. Communalism, then, is a technique for radically restructuring how we claim space in the world, as well as how we compartmentalize other human beings into those spatial schematics. While Isaacs validates the need to improve the quality of interpersonal interactions before expanding the scale to include the city or society as a whole, she also laments the lack of frameworks demonstrated by the commune members for doing so. She therefore sees "[d]eveloping a model that can meet the need to change relationships between individuals within a community, between individuals and the city, and between communities within the city" as "the direction intentional communities must take if they are to be relevant to struggles for broader social change" [32].
Urban kibbutzim are intentional living communities which promote deep and vulnerable interpersonal relationships to combat the “loneliness, alienation, and competition” replete in society [28]. Their space and activities are all structured to achieve this end; perhaps most prominent is the shared bank account, which necessitates a level of trust and intimacy not found in many other roommate situations. Furthermore, food and household items are bought cooperatively and chores are distributed evenly, all to ensure that the space is collectively owned and managed; through this arrangement, each member is valued equally in the the literal sustenance of the urban kibbutz.
This co-dependent structure is born out of a belief that “...the presence of others is a key to the freedom of the human being...that we need close partners who love us and see the goodness in us in order to believe in ourselves and dare to create the things we dream of [29].” Each meal shared and each deposit or withdrawal from the communal bank account represent another link formed on the chain of trust that connects the members to each other. It is from this basis of mutual support that members can advance their goals that perhaps span beyond their own circle of intimate trust, creating a place to which they can return each night and replenish the energy needed to face a capitalist, racist, and patriarchal world in the morning. If “collective action is forever more effective, meaningful and enjoyable than individual action, and that the world is changed by movements, not by personas,” then it follows that the same prioritization of the collective over the individual would extend to living arrangements [30].
In an interview conducted by Karen Isaacs with Ganas, a Staten Island-based commune, in 2007, she uncovered a similar sentiment amongst its members. As she paraphrases: "The way you live affects the way you act in the world as an individual. When you live alone you tend to become very individualistic. When you live in community you are constantly involved in the practice of taking others into consideration" [31]. Communalism, then, is a technique for radically restructuring how we claim space in the world, as well as how we compartmentalize other human beings into those spatial schematics. While Isaacs validates the need to improve the quality of interpersonal interactions before expanding the scale to include the city or society as a whole, she also laments the lack of frameworks demonstrated by the commune members for doing so. She therefore sees "[d]eveloping a model that can meet the need to change relationships between individuals within a community, between individuals and the city, and between communities within the city" as "the direction intentional communities must take if they are to be relevant to struggles for broader social change" [32].
"the world is changed by movements, not by personas"
REALIZING UTOPIA
In urban kibbutzim, the realm of possible living arrangements is expansive. In its lack of formalization, the urban kibbutz diverges drastically from utopian ideals of regularization, such as those integral to Thomas More’s famous Utopia, in which there may be no fewer than six, yet no more than ten, adults in every household. J.C. Davis writes of More’s utopia: “The vagaries of kinship and cohabitation are replaced by regulation. Like the city, language could be planned and formalized in such a way as to control the understanding of utopian citizens [33].” Notably, this lack of formalization is reflected in the interviews we conducted with several urban kibbutz members. Each time we asked an interview subject if there is a particular list of guidelines that their kibbutz uses to govern its space and communal expectations, they responded by saying these norms were developed through ongoing conversations and and group learning activities, rather than formalized contracts.
As one member wrote: "We have agreements and expectations and systems and values that guide us as individuals and us as a collective but I don't think those exist in any sort of official document;" some of those values include "intimacy, partnership, collectivism and voluntarism." He continued on to explain: "Our system doesn't need some sort of written rules or codes because it's based on intimate relationships, conversations and trust. We talk with each other about what's going on in our lives, our feelings, and how we are relating to the kvutza and other parts of our lives. We depend on trust. Trust that each of us is conscious of each other's needs and trust that people will bring up things that aren't working or could be better in the kvutza" [34]. Another member (who grew up in the same youth movement, Habonim Dror, thus perhaps explaining the similar rhetoric) further elaborated upon this principle during a Skype interview with us. He denied the need for strict house guidelines because the intimacy of the house kvutza (group) means that all members have a deep knowledge of the needs and wants of the others; it is from this place that house decisions are made, thus--in his experience--avoiding the pitfalls an impersonal voting system or regimented approval process could create [35].
In urban kibbutzim, the realm of possible living arrangements is expansive. In its lack of formalization, the urban kibbutz diverges drastically from utopian ideals of regularization, such as those integral to Thomas More’s famous Utopia, in which there may be no fewer than six, yet no more than ten, adults in every household. J.C. Davis writes of More’s utopia: “The vagaries of kinship and cohabitation are replaced by regulation. Like the city, language could be planned and formalized in such a way as to control the understanding of utopian citizens [33].” Notably, this lack of formalization is reflected in the interviews we conducted with several urban kibbutz members. Each time we asked an interview subject if there is a particular list of guidelines that their kibbutz uses to govern its space and communal expectations, they responded by saying these norms were developed through ongoing conversations and and group learning activities, rather than formalized contracts.
As one member wrote: "We have agreements and expectations and systems and values that guide us as individuals and us as a collective but I don't think those exist in any sort of official document;" some of those values include "intimacy, partnership, collectivism and voluntarism." He continued on to explain: "Our system doesn't need some sort of written rules or codes because it's based on intimate relationships, conversations and trust. We talk with each other about what's going on in our lives, our feelings, and how we are relating to the kvutza and other parts of our lives. We depend on trust. Trust that each of us is conscious of each other's needs and trust that people will bring up things that aren't working or could be better in the kvutza" [34]. Another member (who grew up in the same youth movement, Habonim Dror, thus perhaps explaining the similar rhetoric) further elaborated upon this principle during a Skype interview with us. He denied the need for strict house guidelines because the intimacy of the house kvutza (group) means that all members have a deep knowledge of the needs and wants of the others; it is from this place that house decisions are made, thus--in his experience--avoiding the pitfalls an impersonal voting system or regimented approval process could create [35].
WORKING WITHIN THE CITY
Why the urban? Simply put, that is where the people are: over 50% of the world’s population now lives in cities. Working within the city means reaching more people and it means direct confrontation with the processes of capitalism, gentrification, and identity-based marginalization, rather than shying away from them. In his article “Socialist Zionism for the 21st Century,” Roth writes about the effect the news of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s 1994 assassination had on him; Israel was no longer a “ fantastic, far-off place, but a project with broken parts that I could help fix.” As he further discovered oppressive elements of Israeli society, “[i]nstead of shock, I felt determined to work to counter those destructive aspects and build positive alternatives in their place”[36]. Urban kibbutzim, in refusing to isolate themselves from society at large, are most suited towards changing it. In its commitment to integrating with the existing environment, the urban kibbutz is a case study in shifting from, to use Iveson's distinction, ‘what is to be done’ to the ‘what is already being done [37]”.
Within the urban setting, the kibbutz can serve to question the structures that define the city, for example, the distinction between public and private. In her book, Walled States, Waning Sovereignty, Wendy Brown writes of the rise of walling as endemic to late capitalism: the “tensions between national interest and the global market... between the security of the subject and movements of capital,” have resulted in the emergence of “new walls striating the globe, walls whose frenzied building was underway even as the crumbling of the old bastilles of Cold War Europe and apartheid South Africa were being internationally celebrated” [38]. In this context, and particularly in light of the privatization of rural kibbutzim, the openness advocated by the urban kibbutzim movement is a potentially radical aspiration.
Why the urban? Simply put, that is where the people are: over 50% of the world’s population now lives in cities. Working within the city means reaching more people and it means direct confrontation with the processes of capitalism, gentrification, and identity-based marginalization, rather than shying away from them. In his article “Socialist Zionism for the 21st Century,” Roth writes about the effect the news of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin’s 1994 assassination had on him; Israel was no longer a “ fantastic, far-off place, but a project with broken parts that I could help fix.” As he further discovered oppressive elements of Israeli society, “[i]nstead of shock, I felt determined to work to counter those destructive aspects and build positive alternatives in their place”[36]. Urban kibbutzim, in refusing to isolate themselves from society at large, are most suited towards changing it. In its commitment to integrating with the existing environment, the urban kibbutz is a case study in shifting from, to use Iveson's distinction, ‘what is to be done’ to the ‘what is already being done [37]”.
Within the urban setting, the kibbutz can serve to question the structures that define the city, for example, the distinction between public and private. In her book, Walled States, Waning Sovereignty, Wendy Brown writes of the rise of walling as endemic to late capitalism: the “tensions between national interest and the global market... between the security of the subject and movements of capital,” have resulted in the emergence of “new walls striating the globe, walls whose frenzied building was underway even as the crumbling of the old bastilles of Cold War Europe and apartheid South Africa were being internationally celebrated” [38]. In this context, and particularly in light of the privatization of rural kibbutzim, the openness advocated by the urban kibbutzim movement is a potentially radical aspiration.
Hear one urban kibbutznik describe the movement's theory of change and what she sees as the significance of the urban.
LIVING CONTRADICTIONS
The kibbutzim of pre-state Palestine were spaces of contradictions, balancing the tensions between rural and urban, inclusiveness and exclusiveness, socialism and privatization, utopia and violence. The urban kibbutz is a space of contradictions, too, and questions remain about their efficacy as tools for change or larger restructuring of society. Urban kibbutz member, Advah Meir Weil addressed one of these contradictions in an interview: “Living in a neoliberal capitalist society in a very Socialist way is a big difference from the old kibbutz, because the old Kibbutz was part of much more of a welfare state, a social democratic state, than we live in today [39]”.
Marx writes that the “modern state creates new bonds, in that it gives legal sanction to the system of private property, and emphasized the self-alienation of man that the system entails” [40]. How can the urban kibbutz hope to end this self-alienation while still inhabiting a system of private property? The urban kibbutz members we spoke to discussed their lack of control over their space— living in rented spaces, their ability to tailor the physical environment according to their ideologies was limited. These spatial restrictions of the city also present a challenge to the goal of integration: the distinction between private and public, between inside and outside, is deeply embedded in capitalist urban space. To what extent can these communities begin to confront the various layers of social alienation and segregation of society, if they continue to exist within these basic societal structures and hierarchies? The answer to who 'has a right' to the urban kibbutz is incomplete.
The kibbutzim of pre-state Palestine were spaces of contradictions, balancing the tensions between rural and urban, inclusiveness and exclusiveness, socialism and privatization, utopia and violence. The urban kibbutz is a space of contradictions, too, and questions remain about their efficacy as tools for change or larger restructuring of society. Urban kibbutz member, Advah Meir Weil addressed one of these contradictions in an interview: “Living in a neoliberal capitalist society in a very Socialist way is a big difference from the old kibbutz, because the old Kibbutz was part of much more of a welfare state, a social democratic state, than we live in today [39]”.
Marx writes that the “modern state creates new bonds, in that it gives legal sanction to the system of private property, and emphasized the self-alienation of man that the system entails” [40]. How can the urban kibbutz hope to end this self-alienation while still inhabiting a system of private property? The urban kibbutz members we spoke to discussed their lack of control over their space— living in rented spaces, their ability to tailor the physical environment according to their ideologies was limited. These spatial restrictions of the city also present a challenge to the goal of integration: the distinction between private and public, between inside and outside, is deeply embedded in capitalist urban space. To what extent can these communities begin to confront the various layers of social alienation and segregation of society, if they continue to exist within these basic societal structures and hierarchies? The answer to who 'has a right' to the urban kibbutz is incomplete.
//FOOTNOTES//
[1] Lyman Tower Sargent, “Theorizing Intentional Community in the Twenty-First Century,” in Intentional Comparative Social Studies: The Communal Idea in the 21st Century,” eds. Eliezer Ben-Rafael, Yaacov Oved, and Menachem Topel (Boston: Brill, 2013), 54; A. Daniel Roth, “Socialist Zionism for the 21st Century,” Jewish Currents: Activist Politics and Art, Sep. 16, 2014. http://jewishcurrents.org/socialist-zionism-twenty-first-century-31346.
[2] Sargent, 54.
[3]Timothy Miller, “A Matter of Definition,” Communal Societies 30, no. 1 (2010): 7, as quoted in Lyman Tower Sargent, “Theorizing Intentional Community in the Twenty-First Century,” in Intentional Comparative Social Studies: The Communal Idea in the 21st Century,” eds. Eliezer Ben-Rafael, Yaacov Oved, and Menachem Topel (Boston: Brill, 2013), 55-56.
[4] Maria Fölling-Albers, “Kibbutz Education: Characteristics, Changes, and Future Relevance,” in Intentional Comparative Social Studies: The Communal Idea in the 21st Century,” eds. Eliezer Ben-Rafael, Yaacov Oved, and Menachem Topel (Boston: Brill, 2013), 282.
[5] Uri Zilbersheid, "The Israeli Kibbutz: From Utopia to Dystopia," Critique: Journal of Socialist Theory 35, no. 3 (2007), 419.
[6] Theodor Herzl, Old New Land:Alteneuland (New York: Herzl Press, 1987), 321.
[7] Kahana, Freddy. Neither Village Nor City. EbookIt.com (August 14, 2015.). Ch 1
[8] Ben-Or, Galia. Kibbutz: Architecture Without Precedents. Museum of Art, Ein Harod, 2010. pg 55
[9] Ibid. pg 44
[10] J.J. Goldberg, "What Actually Undermined the Kibbutz," The Forward, Apr. 7, 2010. http://forward.com/opinion/127122/what-actually-undermined-the-kibbutz/.
[11] Zilbersheid, 430.
[12] Kahana, Freddy. Neither Village Nor City. EbookIt.com (August 14, 2015.). Ch 2
[13] Umar Al-Gubari, "Remembering Lubya,"(Tel Aviv: Zochrot, 2015). http://zochrot.org/uploads/uploads/373e23b4af744082b81a8e5ba9b0e692.pdf.
[14] ***https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Valley_(Middle_East).
[15] Kahana, Freddy. Neither Village Nor City. EbookIt.com (August 14, 2015.). Ch 2
[16] Daniel Roth, “Kibbutz and the City,” The Varsity, May 15, 2006. http://thevarsity.ca/2006/05/15/kibbutz-and-the-city/.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Henri Lefebvre, Writings on Cities (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), 86.
[20] Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991), 83.
[21] Writings on Cities, 148.
[22] Ibid., 151.
[23] Sargent, 69.
[24] David Harvey. "The Right to the City," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27, no. 4 (2003), 940.
[25] Edward Soja, Seeking Spatial Justice (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010), 33.
[26] Ibid., 35-7.
[27] Ibid., 41.
[28] A. Daniel Roth, “‘I’m Part of a Revolution…’: A discussion with an Israeli revolutionary on the past, present and future of Socialist-Zionism and the Kibbutz,” All These Days, Feb. 5, 2014. http://www.allthesedays.org/writing/im-a-part-of-a-revolution-a-discussion-on-the-past-present-and-future-of-socialist-zionism-and-the-kibbutz-with-an-israeli-revolutionary.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Karen Isaacs, "Intentional Communities and Urban Justice: The Possibility of Creative Alternatives," Dec. 18, 2007. Undergraduate paper shared with authors in email, May 15, 2016. 10.
[32] Ibid., 15.
[33] Stephen Bann and Krishan Kumar, Utopias and the Millennium (London: Reaktion Books, 1993), 24.
[34] Ben Marsh (urban kibbutz member), e-mail message to author (Kramer), May 18, 2016.
[35] Anton Marks (urban kibbutz member) in Skype interview with the authors, May 17, 2016.
[36] Roth, “Socialist Zionism for the 21st Century.” Jewish Currents. Sept 16, 2014.
[37] Kurt Iveson (2010) Some critical reflections on being critical: Reading for deviance, dominance or difference?, City, 14:4, 434-441
[38] Wendy Brown, Walled States, Waning Sovereignty (Brooklyn: Zone Books, 2010), 8.
[39] Roth, “Socialist Zionism for the 21st Century.”
[40] Davis, Horace Bancroft, Nationalism & Socialism: Marxist and Labor Theories of Nationalism to 1917. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1967.
[1] Lyman Tower Sargent, “Theorizing Intentional Community in the Twenty-First Century,” in Intentional Comparative Social Studies: The Communal Idea in the 21st Century,” eds. Eliezer Ben-Rafael, Yaacov Oved, and Menachem Topel (Boston: Brill, 2013), 54; A. Daniel Roth, “Socialist Zionism for the 21st Century,” Jewish Currents: Activist Politics and Art, Sep. 16, 2014. http://jewishcurrents.org/socialist-zionism-twenty-first-century-31346.
[2] Sargent, 54.
[3]Timothy Miller, “A Matter of Definition,” Communal Societies 30, no. 1 (2010): 7, as quoted in Lyman Tower Sargent, “Theorizing Intentional Community in the Twenty-First Century,” in Intentional Comparative Social Studies: The Communal Idea in the 21st Century,” eds. Eliezer Ben-Rafael, Yaacov Oved, and Menachem Topel (Boston: Brill, 2013), 55-56.
[4] Maria Fölling-Albers, “Kibbutz Education: Characteristics, Changes, and Future Relevance,” in Intentional Comparative Social Studies: The Communal Idea in the 21st Century,” eds. Eliezer Ben-Rafael, Yaacov Oved, and Menachem Topel (Boston: Brill, 2013), 282.
[5] Uri Zilbersheid, "The Israeli Kibbutz: From Utopia to Dystopia," Critique: Journal of Socialist Theory 35, no. 3 (2007), 419.
[6] Theodor Herzl, Old New Land:Alteneuland (New York: Herzl Press, 1987), 321.
[7] Kahana, Freddy. Neither Village Nor City. EbookIt.com (August 14, 2015.). Ch 1
[8] Ben-Or, Galia. Kibbutz: Architecture Without Precedents. Museum of Art, Ein Harod, 2010. pg 55
[9] Ibid. pg 44
[10] J.J. Goldberg, "What Actually Undermined the Kibbutz," The Forward, Apr. 7, 2010. http://forward.com/opinion/127122/what-actually-undermined-the-kibbutz/.
[11] Zilbersheid, 430.
[12] Kahana, Freddy. Neither Village Nor City. EbookIt.com (August 14, 2015.). Ch 2
[13] Umar Al-Gubari, "Remembering Lubya,"(Tel Aviv: Zochrot, 2015). http://zochrot.org/uploads/uploads/373e23b4af744082b81a8e5ba9b0e692.pdf.
[14] ***https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Valley_(Middle_East).
[15] Kahana, Freddy. Neither Village Nor City. EbookIt.com (August 14, 2015.). Ch 2
[16] Daniel Roth, “Kibbutz and the City,” The Varsity, May 15, 2006. http://thevarsity.ca/2006/05/15/kibbutz-and-the-city/.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Henri Lefebvre, Writings on Cities (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), 86.
[20] Henri Lefebvre, The Production of Space (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991), 83.
[21] Writings on Cities, 148.
[22] Ibid., 151.
[23] Sargent, 69.
[24] David Harvey. "The Right to the City," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27, no. 4 (2003), 940.
[25] Edward Soja, Seeking Spatial Justice (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2010), 33.
[26] Ibid., 35-7.
[27] Ibid., 41.
[28] A. Daniel Roth, “‘I’m Part of a Revolution…’: A discussion with an Israeli revolutionary on the past, present and future of Socialist-Zionism and the Kibbutz,” All These Days, Feb. 5, 2014. http://www.allthesedays.org/writing/im-a-part-of-a-revolution-a-discussion-on-the-past-present-and-future-of-socialist-zionism-and-the-kibbutz-with-an-israeli-revolutionary.
[29] Ibid.
[30] Ibid.
[31] Karen Isaacs, "Intentional Communities and Urban Justice: The Possibility of Creative Alternatives," Dec. 18, 2007. Undergraduate paper shared with authors in email, May 15, 2016. 10.
[32] Ibid., 15.
[33] Stephen Bann and Krishan Kumar, Utopias and the Millennium (London: Reaktion Books, 1993), 24.
[34] Ben Marsh (urban kibbutz member), e-mail message to author (Kramer), May 18, 2016.
[35] Anton Marks (urban kibbutz member) in Skype interview with the authors, May 17, 2016.
[36] Roth, “Socialist Zionism for the 21st Century.” Jewish Currents. Sept 16, 2014.
[37] Kurt Iveson (2010) Some critical reflections on being critical: Reading for deviance, dominance or difference?, City, 14:4, 434-441
[38] Wendy Brown, Walled States, Waning Sovereignty (Brooklyn: Zone Books, 2010), 8.
[39] Roth, “Socialist Zionism for the 21st Century.”
[40] Davis, Horace Bancroft, Nationalism & Socialism: Marxist and Labor Theories of Nationalism to 1917. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1967.