I can't help feeling that this praise of the monastic tradition is something to do with the predominance of men in IT. A sort of Men's club, or perhaps Gentleman's Club, a bit like the military, which along with powerful institutions like the monarchy and imperialism could equally well be justified in terms of providing a service to the communities of which they were a part.<br>
<br>The lack of corruption would be more difficult to validate. There have been many stories of 'celibate' groups finding hidden ways to express their sexual desires, usually involving exploiting inferior groups. Witnesss the revelations of abuse in the catholic church.<br>
<br>When intellectual knowledge is divorced from its real foundation in the world I would guess that its contribution to lay society would tend to be less healthy and less sustainable.� But perhaps you could give an example?<br>
<br>Anna<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Kevin F <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kev.flanagan@gmail.com" target="_blank">kev.flanagan@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Hi Anna,<br>
<br>
Monastics also provided services to the communities of which they are<br>
a part. In the past the monasteries were great repositories of<br>
knowledge. They were not limited to scriptural works alone. In the pre<br>
print era scribes also produced copies of philosophical, technical and<br>
historical works. They provided opportunities for people to educate<br>
themselves and in turn those same people became stewards of that<br>
knowledge which was of general benefit to communities that grew up<br>
around the monasteries.<br>
Now as you say it is true that as celibate institutions they fail to<br>
reproduce themselves. However it can also be said that the knowledge<br>
of which the monasteries were caretakers contributed to the<br>
sustainability and in turn the re-productivity of the lay communities<br>
and that seeing monasteries as socially valuable in this way was one<br>
reason people from those communities chose to join.<br>
Of course this is not the only motivation to join. For some it was to<br>
pursue the spiritual life, for others it was to escape poverty, while<br>
others joined because of social or family pressure.<br>
One of the big rules was that monks and nuns should not own property.<br>
If monks or nuns were to have families things become more complicated<br>
as humans tend to look out for the welfare of their own before that of<br>
the community as a whole. One of the arguments for celibacy in the<br>
church is that it acts as an anti corruption measure. When Priests,<br>
Abbots and Nuns have families it is easy for mini dynasties to emerge<br>
as quite quickly it is the son of the Abbot who inherits his fathers<br>
prestigious and influential role. This situation is avoided when they<br>
are required to be celibate.<br>
The other advantage of a celibate community is that its members have<br>
more time to focus on intellectual work. When this is applied to<br>
technical problems, inventive and innovative solutions can be shared,<br>
improving the health and sustainability of the broader lay community.<br>
All of these dynamics change as societies become better off. Today we<br>
no longer depend on monasteries to preserve and reproduce important<br>
texts. Nor do we depend on them for education or health. None of this<br>
was true 500 years ago. As the quality of life improves for people<br>
across the globe the appeal of monastic life is waning. Everywhere<br>
fewer and fewer young people are taking vocations. The tables have<br>
turned in a way. While at one time communities depended on monasteries<br>
�today most monasteries depend heavily on charity. What they have to<br>
offer society more generally has come into question and their futures<br>
are indeed uncertain.<br>
I do not wish to romanticise the historical role of monasteries, I<br>
just want to point out that their social function has changed over<br>
time. While I agree that today these institutions have become in some<br>
sense parasitic my point is that it was not always so.<br>
What I gained from reading this paper was more from the analysis of<br>
incentives and motivations both of which can be applied to analysis of<br>
intentional communities. Also worth considering is the power of shared<br>
values that may be not be so strong in more secular arrangements.<br>
<br>
Regards<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Kevin<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
On 30 January 2013 19:22, Anna Harris <<a href="mailto:anna@shsh.co.uk">anna@shsh.co.uk</a>> wrote:<br>
> The element left out of this analysis is the fact that monasteries are<br>
> single sex establishments which do not have to cope with child rearing. They<br>
> are therefor parasitic in the sense that they live off the produce of the<br>
> society at large which provides them with the personnel while leaving them<br>
> free to indulge in their 'spiritual capital'.<br>
><br>
> There is no doubt in my mind that child rearing is the most difficult and<br>
> undervalued profession, since it is performed in the main voluntarily by<br>
> untrained people out of love, and therefore does not appear to require any<br>
> specific investment. Consequently it can be ignored as in the above<br>
> discussion as though living in a secular socialist commune could be compared<br>
> to living in a monastery.<br>
><br>
> I am not decrying the need for a spiritual element in helping to sustain<br>
> indivuals and groups. Indeed I think it is essential to bring meaning in the<br>
> present situation of imminent 'collapse of civilisation', but it needs to be<br>
> able to be interwoven into our everyday lives, not hived off into separate<br>
> cloisters which may be beneficial for the inmates but do not really<br>
> contribute to the sustenance of the rest of us.<br>
><br>
> Anna<br>
><br>
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 7:05 AM, Kevin F <<a href="mailto:kev.flanagan@gmail.com">kev.flanagan@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Hello,<br>
>><br>
>> I've been reading 'The Economics of Monasticism by Nathan Smith' over<br>
>> the past week. He makes some interesting points in comparing the<br>
>> sustainability of intentional communities with that of Christian<br>
>> monasteries. Citing a study by Rost et al (2008) that<br>
>> "An average longevity of 463 years makes monasteries more durable not<br>
>> only than firms, but even than most states." and further suggesting<br>
>> possibilities as to what makes them so successful.<br>
>><br>
>> I will add it to the wiki when I get a chance over the coming days.<br>
>><br>
>> The Economics of Monasticism - Nathan Smith<br>
>><br>
>> "Since their emergence in ancient times, Christian monasteries have<br>
>> proven to be among the most durable of all human institutions, and in<br>
>> the medieval centuries made enormous contributions to the emergence of<br>
>> Western civilization. They are organized internally on socialist<br>
>> lines: monks own no property and owe total obedience to the abbot,<br>
>> making the monastery a miniature �centrally planned economy.� A<br>
>> puzzling contrast exists between the longevity of monasteries and the<br>
>> transience of secular socialist communes. This paper presents a<br>
>> theoretical model which shows why voluntary socialist communes might<br>
>> be viable despite �shirking� problems, yet fail due to turnover, and<br>
>> how worship, which induces people with high �spiritual capital� to<br>
>> self-select into the monastery and then grows that spiritual capital<br>
>> through �learning-by-doing,� can solve the turnover problem and make a<br>
>> worship-based socialist commune�a monastery�stable. Monasticism, like<br>
>> the market, is a form of �spontaneous order,� but unlike the market,<br>
>> it does not depend on third-party enforcement (e.g., by a state) to<br>
>> function: this explains why monasticism (unlike capitalism) was able<br>
>> to thrive in the anarchic Dark Ages. Monasteries, in principle and<br>
>> largely in practice, are a form of society based on consent of the<br>
>> governed, unlike liberal states which preach but do not practice<br>
>> consensual governance, and it is interesting to juxtapose the real,<br>
>> live �social contracts� of the monasteries with the notional social<br>
>> contracts of liberal political theory."<br>
>><br>
>> <a href="http://www.thearda.com/workingpapers/monasticism.asp" target="_blank">http://www.thearda.com/workingpapers/monasticism.asp</a><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>><br>
>> =============================================================================<br>
>> GPG KEY<br>
>><br>
>> =============================================================================<br>
>> If this email is not signed or encrypted its because it is sent via<br>
>> the browser. For private communications I encourage friends to use<br>
>> GPG. If you are interested in learning more about GPG try the Enigmail<br>
>> plugin with the Thuderbird email client. A quick search for<br>
>> '<a href="mailto:kev.flanagan@gmail.com">kev.flanagan@gmail.com</a>' on public keyservers should find my most up<br>
>> to date key.<br>
>><br>
>> For example try -<br>
>><br>
>> <a href="http://sks.spodhuis.org:11371/pks/lookup?op=index&search=kev.flanagan%40gmail.com" target="_blank">http://sks.spodhuis.org:11371/pks/lookup?op=index&search=kev.flanagan%40gmail.com</a><br>
>> OR<br>
>><br>
>> <a href="http://pool.sks-keyservers.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=kev.flanagan%40gmail.com" target="_blank">http://pool.sks-keyservers.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=kev.flanagan%40gmail.com</a><br>
>><br>
>> =============================================================================<br>
>><br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> P2P Foundation - Mailing list<br>
>> <a href="http://www.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://www.p2pfoundation.net</a><br>
>> <a href="https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank">https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> P2P Foundation - Mailing list<br>
> <a href="http://www.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://www.p2pfoundation.net</a><br>
> <a href="https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank">https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
=============================================================================<br>
GPG KEY<br>
=============================================================================<br>
If this email is not signed or encrypted its because it is sent via<br>
the browser. For private communications I encourage friends to use<br>
GPG. If you are interested in learning more about GPG try the Enigmail<br>
plugin with the Thuderbird email client. A quick search for<br>
'<a href="mailto:kev.flanagan@gmail.com">kev.flanagan@gmail.com</a>' on public keyservers should find my most up<br>
to date key.<br>
<br>
For example try -<br>
<a href="http://sks.spodhuis.org:11371/pks/lookup?op=index&search=kev.flanagan%40gmail.com" target="_blank">http://sks.spodhuis.org:11371/pks/lookup?op=index&search=kev.flanagan%40gmail.com</a><br>
OR<br>
<a href="http://pool.sks-keyservers.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=kev.flanagan%40gmail.com" target="_blank">http://pool.sks-keyservers.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=vindex&search=kev.flanagan%40gmail.com</a><br>
=============================================================================<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
P2P Foundation - Mailing list<br>
<a href="http://www.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://www.p2pfoundation.net</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank">https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>