Introduction:
The goal of this analysis is to inspect how religious and nationalistic symbolic language is used to either reject or integrate utopian communes within a given democratic society. Based on previous social psychological research, I expect to find that labeling a commune as an “out-group” will be quicker when it is religiously affiliated, as opposed to when the commune is areligious and only ideological (Brewer, 1999). That is to say, the goal of this study is to examine and compare the forms of moral condemnation in 2 distinctive cases studies. The two cases of “utopian communes” are the “Rajneeshpuram” commune of Oregon (including its ensuing conflict) and Israel’s Kibbutz “Shomrat”, during the revealing of the 1990’s rape scandal. By way of comparison, it may be possible to see why and how actions and terminology are used to justify or condemn, legitimize or delegitimize a commune’s existence within the wider democratic society.
The Rajneeshpuram Case:
The Rajneeshpuram conflict was, at least allegedly, primarily over “land use” (Latkin, 1992). I have chosen the Rajneeshpuram case because it may prove to be uniquely instructive for understanding the ways in which religious symbolism rhetoric is employed during urban conflicts between different groups, specifically in cases where the perceived danger seems to pose a moral threat to normal daily living.
Rajneeshpuram was conceived after the followers of Rajneesh (later called “Osho”) started settling in the south-east of Wasco County, after purchasing the land known as the “big muddy ranch” in May of 1981. Wearing red and orange clothing, the Rajneeshees consisted of people from all over the world, primarily a mix of American, European, and Indian followers. The commune jointly left their former Ashram commune of Pune, India, with the hope of building a new utopian commune in the USA, which at first seemed to promise great freedom for religious freedom. This move was led and organized by Ma Anand Sheela, which was known to be the “de facto” leader of the movement (Latkin, 1992). Rajneesh himself served primarily as the spiritual backbone of the sannyasins (Rajneesh’s followers), serving mostly as a symbolic figure since he has committed to a vow of silence for most of Rajneeshpuram’s 4-year existence (Dew, 2018).
One of the most notable curiosities about the Rajneeshpuram “experiment” (as was dubbed by Rajneeshpuram himself) was the incredibly successful and rapid transformation of inhabitable land into a continuously growing well-organized farmland, with a sophisticated housing system, sewage system, lake, and even airport (Buckwalter et al., 1983). This success was attributed to the fact that many sannyasins were in fact professionals, with expertise in engineering and city planning (Dew, 2018). Similarly, a futuristic philosophy promising a utopian work-free society was successful in making the sannyasins continue to work 12 hours a day, for 7 days a week (Buckwalter, 1983). This impressive city planning and subsequent construction feats were accompanied by no less impressive political and bureaucratic accomplishments, as Rajneeshpuram was able to quickly form as a municipality and gain political recognition by Oregon state. At its pick, Rajneeshpuram housed 2000-3000 permanent residents, not including the varying visitors that circulated throughout the year (Abbott, 1990).
Conflict:
The first seeds of conflict were most clearly expressed by the nearby town of Antelope, which housed no more than 50 residents in total. What began as careful suspicious tolerance from the residents of Antelope quickly devolved into fear and explicitly active hostility. This hostility was only exacerbated by the Rajneeshees’ instantaneous omnipresence at Antelope. Buying out enough houses in Antelope, the Rahneshees were able to eventually take control over Antelope’s council as well, changing the names of the streets to fit with the Rajneesh’s ashram (Dew, 2018).
The more Rajneeshpuram grew, the more attention it received and the more conflictual situations the commune found itself in, not only with the small town of Antelope, but also with the public interest land-use group: “the 1000 friends of Oregon”, and later on with Oregon state officials and politicians (Abbott, 2015; Dew, 2018). The most prominent example was Oregon Attorney General’s attempt to dismantle the town city based on the claim there was a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state (Abbott, 2015). Another notable incident marking the picking up of conflict happened on July 29, 1983, when multiple bomb attacks on the sannyasins’ hotel were set off. Though this did not result in any casualties, it had made explicit the violent hostility that was held by the residents of Oregon towards the Rajneeshees (Dew, 2018). Eventually, in 1985, Rajneesh and the Rajneeshees left-back to Pune, India, and the “big muddy ranch” was bought off and converted to a Christian youth camp which continues to operate today (Dew, 2018). These incidents demonstrate the persistence on behalf of Oregonian residents to dismantle this “out-group” commune, going so far as to attack them both through various legal means as well as taking illegal violent actions in the form of bombings.
The Conflict’s Moral Rhetoric
Though the conflict took on the form of several legal disputes, the media coverage was one of the main battlefields on which the rights of Rajneeshpuram right to exist took place. Many attacks against Rajneeshpuram were often answered by Rajneeshpuram’s spokesperson, Sheela, which was known to be intentionally provocative in her statements (Dew, 2018). For example, when asked: “what do you have to say concerning Antelope’s objections to your settlement?” she answered: “tough titties” (Dew, 2018), and when questioned about its residents having free sex with one another, she asked back: “free sex? We don’t charge for it if that’s what you mean” (Dew, 2018).
The Rajneeshees were at first disheartened by the negative and often inaccurate information about Rajneeshpuram portrayed in Oregon and national media, causing Sheela and the rest of her followers to listen to Rajneesh’s advice, believing there is no such thing as bad publicity (Latkin, 1992). Similar to Sheela’s provocative remarks, Rajneeshpuram was an active participant in fueling the moral outrage the residents of Oregon expressed, as Rajneeshees’ would publish ads in magazines spouting “love, relationship, seriousness, laughter, sex”, which expectedly provoked Oregon’s conservative residents (Latkin, 1992).
Both in the press, church leaders, and individuals (such as residents of Antelope) Rajneesh himself was accused of being the devil while the press portrayed the Rajneeshees as manipulated stooges (Latkin, 1992). One resident responded to the editor of “the print” in February of 1983:
…To put it simply, it’s a battle between Satan and God, and Rajneesh is on Satan’s side! The “Red Brigade” is a Cult! Also the “so-called” American way to either welcome them in the name of “freedom” or ignore them is exactly what Satan would like! There is no such thing as the “American” way-it’s either God’s way or the Devil’s way!
(Larson, 1983).
This quote, which follows a biblical passage illustrates the extent to which moral Christian symbolism is used to separate Rajneeshpuram from the rest of Oregon, creating a “us” vs “them” paradigm, where Christian morality is called to supersede the “American” democratic morality. Interestingly enough, Rajneeshpuram’s mayor, Swami Krishna Deva similarly chooses Christian iconography to defend the practices of the Rajneeshpuram commune, liking the kissing of Rajneesh’s feet to the biblical story of Mary Magdalene perfuming the feet of Jesus (Obritschkewitsch, 1983). This may be interpreted as an attempt to bridge the gap between the religion of Rajneeshpuram with that of the Christian orthodoxy of Oregon’s residents, in an attempt to show, through familiar symbolic imagery, how the difference between the practices of Rajneeshpuram is in fact similar in nature to that of the devout Christian. Deva’s attempt did not seem to ultimately prove too useful, as Rajneeshpuram did not seem to ever be accepted by Oregon’s residents, up until its 1985 demise.
Thus, it seems that the battle over Rajneeshpuram, despite its heavy legal and urban conflictual aspects, which have been the major focus of media coverage, was almost always accompanied by a moral symbolic battle. Oregonians’ drawing upon Christian symbolism to fuel their moral criticisms, and Perhaps because Rajneeshpuram consisted of followers of a religious leader, Rajneesh, and the residents were following ritualistic practices originating in Indian traditions which seemed too radical, promiscuous, and immoral, that so much moral and religious language had been used. It is probable to think that this religious-moral tone is what caused the more violent escalation of the conflict, such as the bombing of the hotel, and what had attracted much of the nationwide attention this small, peculiar city has received. Either way, it would be interesting to study not only what religious languages are used in these types of municipal battles, but also what are their eventual causal implications.
The Case of the Israeli Kibbutz Shomrat
Unlike Rajneeshpuram, which was a utopian commune that, as demonstrated earlier, has been faced with explicit criticism entrenched with moral and religious language, there are other notable examples of other utopian communes that were not incessantly depicted as dangerous or evil. On the contrary, there are some utopian societies that integrated well into the fabric of society. One of the clearest examples of such utopian communes which continue to operate today is the Israeli kibbutzim, that have existed 100 years ago, even before Israel was founded in 1948.
If the Rajneeshpuram case demonstrated the ways in which religious and nationalistic terminology was used to criticize and attack the residents of the commune, which were seen as “outsiders”, the Israeli Kibbutz represented Israel’s ideal and ruling hegemony, being older than the country itself, its very existence and legitimacy heavily rested on a nationalistic-Zionist terminology and ethos (Bar-Itzhak, 1999). Imporatntely, the kibbutz is non-religious and no one in Israel sees it as religious. The kibbutz is known to base its principle on nationalist and communist ideology rather than anything sacred or divine. To many, the Israeli kibbutz is so ingrained with Israeli consciousness and culture, it almost becomes indistinguishable from Israeli society itself (Shoham, 2006). The Israeli kibbutz project, going back to 1914, began with the second wave of Jewish immigrants to Palestine, who came with the hope of building the Jewish nation but quickly became disenchanted with the form of governance typical of the first settlements (Diamond, 1957). In turn, they chose to opt for a different form of settlements, which drew upon a communist-Marxist ethos (Diamond, 1957). These kibbutzim became wildly successful and prosperous, becoming one of the major bedrocks of Israel’s foundation and ethos (Shoham, 2006).
However, during 1988-1995, a series of newspaper publications covered a rape scandal that took place between 11 16-18 year-old-boys boys and a 14-year-old girl at the kibbutz of Shomrat. The revelation of this scandal can be argued to have shattered the perception as an ideal moral superior Israeli living (Shoham, 2009). Other criticisms of the kibbutzim throughout the years consisted mostly of its changes and privatization, or the peculiar way many kibbutz children were raised in a shared kids home away from their parents (Bar-Itzhak, 1999). However, the Shomrat scandal served as the opening of floodgates for moral criticism. The act of rape, more than simply being conceived as deviate and immoral, called into question the very principles of peace and equality that the kibbutz allegedly stood for. Yet, the narrative the kibbutz attempted to construct was able to make it seem exceptional and isolated, while the kibbutz’s coverage of the attempted to portray the 14-year-old-girl as an unfortunate girl who was unable to integrate into the community (Shoham, 2009).
This event spurred criticism of the kibbutz movement and project in its entirety, hinting at inequality, favoritism, and corruption. However, throughout many of the opinion pieces written, though often critical, there was no mention of dismantling the kibbutz or generalizing from this event to all of the other kibbutzim in Israel. Though pointing fingers, the criticisms were in some sense mild and moderate, not excessively focused on its moral corruption. The legal and social action taken in this case was directed only at the boys themselves, rather than the kibbutz, though it did play a role in attempting to silence the matter. Thus, by targeting individuals within the kibbutz, the kibbutz itself remained, on the whole, untouched. Though its reputation for having been in charge of the boys was hurt, the kibbutz’s fundamental existence was never questioned as a result of the incident. Unlike Rajneeshpuram that only lasted for 5 years up after its conception, kibbutz Shomrat continues to exist up until today in 2022.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it seems that in both cases of utopian communes have received moral condemnation for demonstrating deviancy, but it’s only in the case of Rajneeshpuram that this criticism has led to violent actions in the form of bombing, calls for its destruction and parables evoking the image of “Satan” and “Hell”. Though kibbutz Shomrat has also been criticized with religious rhetoric, the fact that the kibbutz itself was already so ingrained in the history and ethos of Israel protected it from the same level of criticism Rajneeshpuram received. This is in line with theories of in-group and out-group theories, where the more out-group a utopian communed seemed (because of its residents and lifestyle), the faster things have escalated to overt hostility. It seems that one of the major differences between the two cases, beyond the important historical and cultural differences of the USA and Israel, is the fact that Rajneeshpuram was, and indeed was seen, as a religious entity and the Israeli kibbutz was not. Rajneeshpuram consists of foreigners, people who may be easily taken as the “dangerous other” while the kibbutz was one of Israel’s core foundations. These differences may explain the findings of how certain forms utopian communes are perceived, and thus how they are able to survive.
Bibliography:
Abbott, C. (1990). Utopia and Bureaucracy: The Fall of Rajneeshpuram, Oregon. Pacific Historical Review, 59(1), 77–103. https://doi.org/10.2307/3640096
Abbott, C. (2015). Revisiting Rajneeshpuram: Oregon’s Largest Utopian Community as Western History. Oregon Historical Quarterly, 116(4), 414–447. https://doi.org/10.5403/oregonhistq.116.4.0414
Bar-Itzhak, H. (1999). “The Unknown Variable Hidden Underground” and the Zionist Idea: Rhetoric of Place in an Israeli Kibbutz and Cultural Interpretation. Journal of American folklore, 497-513.
Brewer, M. B. (1999). The psychology of prejudice: Ingroup love or outgroup hate?. Journal of social issues, 55, 429-444.
Buckwalter, D. W., & Legler, J. I. (1983). Antelope and Rajneeshpuram, Oregon – clash of cultures: a case study. Urbanism Past & Present, 16(2), 1–13.
Dew, S. (2018), WILD WILD COUNTRY. Six-part television documentary series. Created by Chapman and Maclain Way. Produced by Netflix, 2018. Religious Studies Review, 44: 216-216. https://doi.org/10.1111/rsr.13447
Diamond, S. (1957). Kibbutz and shtetl: The history of an idea. Soc. Probs., 5, 71.
Larson, P, (1983, February 23). “Rajneeshees, ‘Idle Hands’ draw criticism”. The Print. https://oregonnews.uoregon.edu/lccn/2020260108/1983-02-23/ed-1/seq-2/#words=Rajneesh
Latkin, C. (1992). Seeing Red: A Social-Psychological Analysis of the Rajneeshpuram Conflict. Sociological Analysis, 53(3), 257–271. https://doi.org/10.2307/3711703
Obritschkewitsch, R. (1983, February 23). “Standing-room-only crowd hears Rajneeshee”. The Print. https://libraryguides.vu.edu.au/apa-referencing/7newspapers
Shoham, E. (2006). HaHazer Hasgora: Stiya VePikuach Hevrati BaKibbutz [The Closed Yard: Deviation and Social Control in the Kibbutz]. Ramat Efal: Yad Tabenkin and the Ashkelon Academic College.
Shoham, E. (2009). Reconstructing the Narrative of Rape in the Kibbutz by the Israeli Press. International Journal of Conflict and Violence (IJCV), 3(2), 220-229.