ISSUES

We are now in a position to draw some comparative conclusions regarding the three movements that have been considered in this book. Two questions have been returned to constantly throughout. These have been, first, what impact has been made on the ‘host’ societies by the movement concerned? This can be seen as part of a more general question, namely, how can the interactions between the movements and their ‘host’ societies be characterised? The second question was, broadly, how have the movements attempted to construct ‘alternative societies’ and ‘alternative economies’? Some comments have been made regarding these questions in the chapters dealing with the movements, and these will be now be brought into comparative focus.

These are, however, not the only questions and issues that need to be considered in this chapter. In the course of the discussion two further issues have arisen that appertain to all the movements, and which can also be considered comparatively. The first of these could be identified as the ‘individual–collective’ dichotomy within the movements. This issue concerns the extent to which individual members of the movements have personal autonomy, or putting it the other way around, the extent to which the collectivity that they form part of impinges upon and determines their lives. Another way of thinking about this issue is to pose it as a question: what is the distinction between private and communal spheres in the movement? Are certain issues seen as matters that are to be determined by an individual by their own private judgement, or are they to be discussed by the whole collective? It seems a reasonable working hypothesis that in movements of communal living the communal sphere will incorporate issues that in ordinary ‘bourgeois’ life would form part of the personal sphere. However, we might ask how far the process of moving issues from the personal sphere into the communal sphere goes in the specific instances we are considering.

The second issue that requires comparative consideration is the way in which the movements now perceive their relationship with the German Youth Movement. The relationships were different: to restate briefly the two most divergent examples among the three considered, the Integrierte Gemeinde in effect forms the direct continuation of a specific Youth Movement bund, whereas the Youth Movement was merely one of several roots of the Kibbutz. The question of the connection does not need to be re-opened.