Neo-Liberal Thinking in Eco-Villages:-Need for Concern?

Neo-liberal thinking in Eco- villages:-need for concern?

Cultural Sociology Project

University of Southern Denmark Esbjerg Cultural Sociology- Social Transformation Processes Gunnar Lind Haase Svendsen

13th of June 2016 Cultural Sociology project 2016

Table of Contents Neo- liberal Thinking in Eco-villages: -Need for concern? ...... 2 Introduction and Research Question ...... 2 Theoretical Approach ...... 3  Actor Network Theory ...... 4  Neo-liberal thinking ...... 5  Operationalization of the theory ...... 5 Methodology ...... 6  Interview, observation and participant observation ...... 6  Presenting the Organisation, the Eco-villages, the Informants and Cases of Study ...... 6  Short presentation of LØS – Organisation of Eco-villages in Denmark ...... 6  Short presentation of `Village 1´ -and the informants and “The Shelter” project ...... 7  Short presentation of `Village 2´ -and the informants and the Café ...... 8 Analysis ...... 8  Map of the network ...... 8  The Shelter Case in `Village 1´ ...... 9  The case of the Café in `Village 2´ ...... 12  The Nature of Facts – natural science in dispute with the rest of society ...... 12  The types of studies done – in which sense can social science be empirical ...... 13  Production and Reproduction of Neo-liberal Mentality ...... 14 Conclusion ...... 14 Three questions for the oral exam ...... 15 Bibliography ...... 16

Cultural Sociology project 2016

Neo- liberal Thinking in Eco-villages: -Need for concern?

Introduction and Research Question Being part of a global trend, the Danish journalist Jørgen Steen Nielsen argues for transformation and circular economy focusing on sustainability as an alternative to the focus on growth in the Western capitalistic societies. New attempt and alternative lifestyles; slow-food, perma-culture and ecological footprints are advocated as answers when issues around the economic and ecological crisis are addressed.

This trend has created an increased interest in alternative communities, like eco-villages, which have received huge attention and there are new eco-villages popping up all over the country in these years, reflecting an increased interest in assimilating a more green and sustainable lifestyle, and move into an alternative community (Nyheder, 2016)

In the established eco-village this interest has increased the focus on their communities when people are searching for inspiration. The idea of structuring the communication with these new increased masses of people showing interest in their lifestyle has developed a focus among the communities on how to communicate their concepts. Alongside there is a focus on how to create possibilities for business opportunities inside the eco villages and I discovered a workshop opportunity on Facebook called `Ecovillages and Business opportunities´ on the Facebook page of the organisation LØS (Community of Eco-villages in Denmark). The workshop was going to be on xxx …, and I attended this workshop as an observer.

The agenda of the workshop had three points, and especially one of the items on this agenda had caught my attention, namely part C saying;

“How are we getting costumers for the Eco-villages as a learning environment? Who are the customers? Which needs do the customers´ have? What kind of developing possibilities do we see in the Eco-villages? Dilemmas in using the community as a learning environment?”

(Økosamfund og Erhvervsmuligheder , 2016)

This interest to incorporate business strategies into a community based on shared facilities and an alternative lifestyle must create dilemmas, which is address in the presentation, and I have set my-self up to do a research on the topic.

My prejudice was, that people who wants to live in eco-villages, building their own sustainable house, having communal eating arrangements, growing vegetables together and putting a lot of effort into the fellowship of their communities, did all this because they have chosen an alternative to a more individualistic lifestyle, and actually wanted to escape the agenda of business, competition, consumerism and growth. I am curious about whether it is possible to combine this alternative lifestyle in Eco-villages with a more neo-liberal thinking.

The research question is;

Cultural Sociology project 2016

 What kinds of conflict occur when `business opportunities´ are being introduced to the eco-village community?  How do the community handle these conflicts?  Will new hybrid solutions occur? The theoretical approach in this research will be taken from Bruno Latour´s Agent-Network Theory, where he argues to redefine associations by deploying networks which I will unfold in the theoretical part and this will guide my research alongside an issue addressed by Julia Guthman, who has been studying neo-liberal thinking inside food activism in California.

The analysis will be based on two different projects being discussed in the two eco-villages I have visited for this project. The empirical research has taken place in `Village 1´ and `Village 2´; both communities are members of LØS. Names of places and sites are changed to anonymise the people involved in the study.

Attending the workshop in March I talked with two of the workshop facilitators and found out they had a project in process, which could be an interesting topic for this research. Two people from `Village 2´ attended the workshop and I chose to follow that track since `Village 2´ is the most alternative community in Denmark. `Village 2´ could be used as a critical case; if neo-liberal thinking influences this community it is likely that it can influence all alternative communities. A critical case is an extreme or atypical case used to increase generalisability by a strategical selection to provide the biggest amount of data on a specific topic. A critical case can activate basic mechanism on the subject. (Flyvbjerg, 2001)

When I visited the two workshop participants in `Village 2´ they had not at all had any attention towards starting up any individual business in shared facilities, neo-liberal thinking only occurred in the hash market, which already was very well established and not at all my interest. Instead I was introduced to a new café being created to fill out a gap in the community for a non- alcoholic meeting point. Some interesting dynamic of the community occurs around this topic, and I have chosen to examine the hybrid initiative in the analysis.

Theoretical Approach First I will make an introduction to Bruno Latours theoretical concept Actor-Network-Theory (ANT). Latour is interested in the dynamic relations between all phenomena. The theory is that all relations and connections create hybrids, and as a scientist we must focus on these dynamic networks, in order to understand the hybrids. (Blok & Jensen, 2009)

ANT can be seen as an alternative to the more dominant approach in sociology namely the tendency to dichotomize into either of micro- and macrostructures when studying social phenomena. Instead of this dichotomization ANT wants to study the formation of heterogenic network, figured by all kinds of actors making alliances to create results they can benefit from. It is the construction of these networks that are at interest. (Olesen & Kroustrup, 2007)

Cultural Sociology project 2016

After introducing ANT I will introduce an article by Julie Guthman addressing neo-liberal influence in the agro- food area in California, because this neo-liberal influence is what I want to examine in the Eco-village context.

Actor Network Theory Blok & Jensen (2009) explains that the nucleus in ANT is that no unit is anything in its own being, but gain importance by all the changeable relations to other units and these relations or connections are explained as actor- network.

When Latour (2005) explains ANT he explains how the existences of specific social ties are revealing the hidden presence of some specific social force. Latour calls for a relativistic approach for the scientist to be able to examine when situations are changing, when there is a change in actions, and he addresses the important of rendering the social world as flat as possible, and imbedded in the theory is also the methodology when Latour explains how to use ANT to reassemble social connections in three duties or steps. These are done by deploying the many controversies about association and then render the means that allow the actors to stabilize those controversies and finally through which procedures do they reassemble the social as a collective.

Revealing the controversies is described as a puzzle between what Latour organized as five major uncertainties:

 The nature of groups – contradictory ways to be given an identity  The nature of actions – a variety of agents barge in and displace original goals  The nature of objects - the type of agencies interacting  The nature of facts – natural science in dispute with the rest of society  The types of studies done – in which sense can social science be empirical

(Latour, 2005 p. 21-22)

In the analysis these five uncertainties will be clarified.

Latour stands for an association-sociology where focus is set on the heterogenic relations, which are described as associations between human and nonhuman- all named `actant´, and he insist to withdraw the nonhuman things, machines, instruments as parts of the analysis, since all `actants´ are being part in the production of knowledge in the network. ANT is a method, a tool to follow associations, translations and mediations, in order to make us open our eyes to the fact that we do not know the character of these hybrid associations beforehand (Blok & Jensen, 2009)

An `Actor´ in ANT is a person acting, and “… action is borrowed, distributed, suggested, influenced, dominated, betrayed and translated” Latour uses Goffman as inspiration and warn us that acting “is not a coherent, controlled, well-rounded, and clean-edged affair.” So the sociologist of associations must keep interest in “all the traces that manifest the hesitations actors themselves feel about the `drives´ that makes them act”. Actors are always doing something in account to the figurations and they constantly add new entities while withdrawing others into anti-groups or opponents (Latour, 2005, p. 46-57)

Cultural Sociology project 2016

According to Blok & Jensen (2009) facts are orders progressively fought for by actors, who have been able to mobilise resources, but their world might not necessarily play along. Fact-builders can have different strategies to meet their goals, some of these strategies mentioned are; joining others projects, ask for help to their own project, re-organise interest and goals by influence, re-define the social groups or try to define new groups. Inspired by Machiavelli, Latour talks about strategic choices of alliances, between humans and between humans and nonhumans, and Latour describes a “machination of force” which the fact-builder uses as a strategy to keep the interested parts together.

ANT is a specific analysis of construction- and translation processes. And Latour fuses knowledge, truth, efficiency and power. To be able to detain ones ally is the same as creating facts. ANT is analysis of how fact- builders attempt to link ally to their projects. ANT is focusing on elements and relations which stabilise or de- stabilise a network. All collectives are incomparable because every collective produce a variety of things and facts that are suitable for their community and this dynamic increases the variation among themselves and explicit the uniqueness of network. Latour also focuses on how to balance `full speed forward´ and `slow- motion´; two terms he uses to distinguish modernity and pre-modern (Blok & Jensen, 2009)

Neo-liberal thinking In the article by Julie Guthman (2008) she addresses “how projects in opposition to neoliberalizations of food and agricultural sectors seem to produce and reproduce neoliberal forms, spaces of governance, and mentalities.”

Guthman argues that within the past three decades the neoliberal project´s rationalities and governmental techniques has emerged and are being taken for granted, and therefore it is “important to interrogate the micro-politics of various activist projects, in terms of what strategic decisions under-gird them, how these strategies are operationalized …” Neoliberalism is defined as a theory of political economic practices focusing on “individual entrepreneurial freedoms and skills within an institutional framework characterized by strong private property rights, free markets and free trade” (Guthman, 2008, p. 1172)

Alongside neoliberalism has induced a form of governmentality that “attempts to enforce market logics in their governance and to produce subjects who employ market rationales in their day-to-day behaviour” and neoliberalism is unique in creating conditions where “entrepreneurial and competitive conduct is possible” and the neoliberal governance has both the elements of responsibilization and valuation (Guthman, 2008, p. 1173)

The individuals are in this context `small businesses´ - the entrepreneurial self- in competition with their surrounding community, left alone with their `winning´ or `loosing´ strategies. Another significant aspect in this sort of governance addressed by Guthman is that “activist seems to accept and even embrace these new modes of governance … (and) they have given up on the state as provider of services, regulator of externalities …” (Guthman, 2008, p. 1175)

Operationalization of the theory When operationalising ANT the focus on the three steps of reassembling the social; deploy – render and reassemble

Cultural Sociology project 2016

Latour (2005) explains how to deploy the field, by making a flat map of the field of interest by creating a panorama, by scaling, spacing and contextualising connectedness to be able to localise the global, and then re- contextualise the traceability of the actor’s interactions, knowing that interactions are not homogeneous.

To be able to understand the conflicts going on in the communities in the case studies, I will analyse the five major uncertainties, which Latour addresses as the nature of groups,- actions, -objects, -facts, and types of studies done.

Inspired by Julie Guthman´s theory the analysis will also focus on the production and reproduction of neo- liberal mentality.

Methodology Choosing ANT as a theoretical approach outline the methodology, since ANT describes how to attend the `object of observation´ by doing ethnographical research combining observations on materials and semiotics, and thereby maps relations simultaneously between things and between concepts (Gobo, 2008)

Interview, observation and participant observation With the intension to get close to the conflicts occurring in the eco-villages when the residents discuss business opportunities the ethnographical researcher can utilise a variety of skills.

According to Gobo (2008) the researcher can select and follow a particular participant, letting his or her actions lead the context of observation or the researcher can choose an object with a certain importance and follow the trajectories. Having chosen the ANT approach both options are at stake, the project being presented as `The Outdoor project´ at `Village 1´ will be the main focus of the analysis and this research maintain a collection of data from observations, interviews, a magazine and websites.

Presenting the Organisation, the Eco-villages, the Informants and Cases of Study A short presentation of the organisation, the eco-villages and the people I have interviewed to understand the map pictured in the analysis and to get a sense of the area of interest.

Short presentation of LØS – Organisation of Eco-villages in Denmark According to the organisations website (Om LØS, 2016) the members of the organisation covers a wide field of alternative housing facilities in Denmark, from small units with 5-20 residents to larger eco- villages with up to 400 residents and communities with a spiritual centre, and all of them with a variation in the degree of ecological buildings and lifestyle.

The purpose of the organisation is to represent the eco-villages in Denmark, to cooperate with politicians, authorities, and other organisations with shared interest and to create a forum for the eco-villages ideas and experiences and support establishing and developing of eco-villages. The organisation support scientific studies supporting the purpose of the organisation, to inform and educate and develop the vision continuously.

The organisation is led by a board of 5-9 persons, the chairman is Niels Aagard.

Cultural Sociology project 2016

The definition of eco-village, according to LØS website;

“… a sustainable settlement in urban or rural areas, respecting and maintaining the circulation in earth, water, fire and air. It is settlement in a human scale containing all areas of live…”

Short presentation of `Village 1´ -and the informants and “The Outdoor” project `Village 1´ was established in 2004 and is sited around an old farm with thatched roof and 15 hectare of land. The community is based on ecological housing and perma- cultural principals and at the moment there are 28 adults and 40 children in 19 households including both complete and non-complete houses. Communicating the results of their experiences in self-sufficient lifestyle is a part of the agenda for the community.

We are a food- and housing cooperative, the site is rented by the individuals, but we possess our houses, the land is part of the food cooperative, so you have to build a house and join the food cooperative to be part of the community here. (Resident at `Village 1´)

The Food cooperative is organised by a group of residents being responsible for purchasing all the basic food products, and another group is responsible for organising the work to be done in the vegetable garden and every day you can eat at the common house at the old farm, where there are kitchen facilities and dining rooms. Whether you want to be part-time or full-time member of the evening-meals arrangement is self- imposed, and volunteer work is the basic foundation of all the common work being done in the eco-village.

The informants from `Village 1´

Eva – 38 years old, a resident for 9 years, guided tour leader in the community and co- innovator of “The Outdoor” project, family with 3 children.

Sanne – 50 years old, a resident for 4 years, guided tour leader in the community and co- innovator of “The Outdoor” project, single family with 2 children.

Peter – 43 years old, resident for 12 years, family with 5 children, supporter of “The Outdoor” project.

Hanne – 38 years old, a resident for 7 year, single family with 4 children and sister to;

Sissel – 45 years old, a resident for 7 years, family with 3 children, Sissel and Hanne are sceptical to “The Outdoor” project.

“The Outdoor”- Project:

The project is presented as an experimental outdoor area for sustainable solutions, an interactive and experimental playground where visitors can discover and play with sustainable solutions.

The project is innovated by Eva and Sanne and has been presented to their community and is in process and being discussed at the moment and there are pro´s and con´s to the project among the residents.

Cultural Sociology project 2016

Short presentation of `Village 2´ -and the informants and the Café `Village 2´ is an experimental community established in 1970 on 21 hectare of land, being 75 grownup residents, which is the limit of the legal capacity. `Village 2´ has four rules, no hard drugs, no violence and weapons, no stealing and no fighting dogs, these rules are posted on the advertising pillar when you enter the area.

Taken from the website ( XXX, 2016 ) “ XXX is a free place in the sense that it contains life, display life, it´s complications, it´s developments. It has space for odd characters, imaginative artists, caring mothers and fathers, shamans, horsewomen and many more. It is both part of Denmark and the society we are all part of and at the same time withdrawn from unconscious consumer´s race and “conversational kitchen´s” culture. XXX is owned by the association “XXX”, which is organized with the general meeting (every year, Aug. 21. At 2 pm) as the highest authority, that means there is no board or chairman. Decisions are mostly taken in consensus but voting can also be seen. XXX is a social experiment in its 45th year”

Informants from `Village 2´

Anna – 45 years old, a resident for the last 8 years, third time she lives here, she came to the site for 18 years ago, she lives on incapacity benefit, she is in a relationship with Søren, and she has a daughter and a grandchild

Søren – 50 years old, a resident for 8 years, live on part time pension, and attempt a public resource procedure, dreaming of self-sufficiency after working 3 to 4 jobs at the same time for many years.

The Café

Together with two other women from `Village 2´, Anna is preparing to open a café in a private house as an alternative meeting point for the residents and an alternative to the pub. The café will be free from alcohol.

Analysis In order to reveal the controversies addressed in the research question, the analytical framework will first be visualised as a map of the networks deployed. Subsequently the next part of the analysis will be divided into the five types of uncertainties described by Latour (2005). The Shelter case is the main source of interest since the conflicts occurring in the community are in relation to the research question.

Map of the network Map of the connections of the workshop; `Eco-villages and business opportunities´ (Own work)

(Map is taken out to protect individuals and places)

After creating this map with a point of reference to the workshop, it became clear that Eva has a strong network, she writes for the member magazine, takes care of social media both in LØS and `Village 1´ and she is respected by both the pros and the cons in the community, and hereby she becomes a fact builder. Eva has also been the main informant into the field.

Cultural Sociology project 2016

The Outdoor Case in `Village 1´ The Outdoor project is a business project suggested by two women at `Village 1´, Eva and Sanne. They are already working on communicating sustainability to school classes and other guests at the eco-village, and they would like to expand the possibilities. The Outdoor project is introduced as both a possibility for the community and for tourist to use the facilities. The two women are intending to use the facilities inside a business strategy; they have gained some funding to the project and are in process of getting support in their community.

The Nature of Groups – contradictory ways to be given an identity When describing group formations, Latour finds that for a group to be defined a list of anti-groups is set up as well. To delineate a group you have to have a spokesperson, which speaks for the group, and for every group there is a list of anti-groups, the spokesperson defines them, boundaries are marked and delineated, the social scientist is included in the group. (Latour, 2005, p. 30-34)

At `Village 1´ the Outdoor project, has divided the residents into pros and cons of the project, similar to other issues in the community. Sanne tells how some people in their community feels like “monkeys in a cage” and fear that the Outdoor project would affect this increasingly, influencing that they do not support the project, while on the other hand their supporters are talking about synergy, possibilities and future of being the main income for the community exemplified by Peter;

“ … the Outdoor project must be close to the shared facilities at the farm … courses, gatherings, energy … I see the possibility of internationalisation, exchange of views, something which expand our vision and our broadness … either we go out in the world or the world come to us … I prefer the last, since I’m not travelling a lot, it would be convenient …”

Hanne, who belongs in the sceptical group, fear that the fine balance developed in the eco village, where the residents give the time and energy they can manage and don´t count the hours, will be relocated when business enters the community. Sissel explains that she doesn´t fear the project of the Outdoor project, she just don´t like the idea of having it in her backyard, but Hanne thinks the project is complicated because it is a business, the possibility of ending the project if you find it problematic, will then be to remove someone’s job.

Another dilemma when discussing the uncertainties of how the Outdoor project will influence the flow of tourist to the village, Sissel explains why she is sceptical by telling how “tourist just walks around and stare into my garden, even though we are there”. The dilemma in how to regulate the behaviour of the tourists is being debated between the sisters, whether or not the eco-village should make a folder with a map showing the tourist where to be, and where not to be, they did not agree on this topic.

The spokespersons of the Outdoor project, Eva and Sanne, have a drive to communicate sustainability. Sanne explains that;

“…when you have been teaching or having a guided tour in the village you get a kick, and you discover the reason in doing this because people are so happy, so curios and all grateful when they leave …”

Cultural Sociology project 2016

Sissel and Hanne are allies as sceptical to the Outdoor project and they don´t believe that people in eco-villages live smarter or healthier than other people, and find it embarrassing when people in their village are so eager to display how `right` they are living, they disagree on this subject.

Summary

The boundary works going on between the pros and cons of the Outdoorr project at `Village 1´ exemplifies the conflicts occurring in the community. The conflict outlined is how many visitors and tourists the community is capable of managing and how they will be able to balance business and volunteer work.

The Nature of Actions – a variety of agents barge in and displace original goals Actors are always doing something in account to the figurations and they constantly add new entities while withdrawing others into anti-groups or opponents, through strategies and allies (Latour, 2005). Strategies occur in all levels;

“LØS has a strategy to increase sustainable lifestyle in Denmark and to create many more eco-villages both on the countryside and in the cities, to strengthen a sustainable business development and implement a massive education in sustainability …” (Om LØS, 2016)

Education in sustainability is exactly what the Outdoor project is about. At the community meeting at “Village 1´ Eva and Sanne ´s explicit strategy is to get the community to be part of the process and taking ownership to the Outdoor project, with the intention to make everybody feel comfortable and together create the best solution. They present an unfinished project, very open-ended and this is actually confusing both the pros and the cons. Both sides are asking for more specific or concrete material. But Eva and Sanne rely on the process and try to calm down the frustration, by communicating their intensions of getting a solution everybody can live with, and they are willing to spend the time needed. They rely on the process and Eva explains to me how their meetings are organised, and contain a tool they use for their community meetings;

“ …one of the tools we have is `the session´, then everybody gets time to say something, if we eliminate `the session´ people can have trouble saying the things they want … we counted on the resistance, what can we do about it? … “

Sanne and Eva are focused on finding the balance between their own drives and the community´s capacity, in terms of visitors, but they are also encouraged by the supporters to start the innovation. What could turn out to be a more hidden strategy are revealed to me at the interview where they explain how they have practiced to involve some of the other residents in their guided tour- project and the affect has been very positive, the involved had the same kick as them, and became supporters, so maybe a strategy could be to involve the sceptical and hope that the involvement would have the same effect on them.

Spokesperson – intermediary or mediator

Whether the scientist attends the spokesperson as a mediator or an intermediary is a matter of perspective. Latour defines an intermediary as a transport of meaning or force without transformation, input defines

Cultural Sociology project 2016

output, like a black-box. The mediator on the other hand transforms, translates, distort or modify the meaning or the elements and their input is never a good predictor of their output (Latour, 2005).

A black-box is transporting facts and opinions not questioned by the receiver. In the eco-village communities the drive and need for ecological and economic transformation is taken as a matter of course; most of the informants are not questioning their sustainable or alternative lifestyle, though Hanne questions whether they actually are being more sustainable than people outside their community.

Summary

In `Village 1´ Peter explains a dilemma for Sanne and Eva´s project, because

“It is easier for the community to take a stand in a more specific project than it is to sit together and dream, but if they had presented a specific project now it might not have had a chance …”

So the strategy chosen by Eva and Sanne might be the right one, the process is not done yet so it is not possible for me to conclude, but the strategy chosen so far by the innovators has kept their project alive, and it has not yet been rejected.

The Nature of Objects - the type of agencies interacting The kind of interaction the Outdoor project is modifying, as a vague idea presented to the community, can be multifarious depending on how the project develops. No matter which of the two opponents; Place the Outdoor project in the middle of the village and create synergy or place the Outdoor project in the outskirts of the village or nowhere, the position of the project will affect the community one way or the other.

At `Village 1´ the conflict of using the community land for individual business projects is not new. Hanne wishes it was possible to create a model; working as a framework in the future, in order to balance the interests of the individuals and the community´s opportunity for expression. But she is aware that it might not make any sense because every project is unique and the circumstances change all the time, with some people leaving the community and others coming in. The sisters agreed upon the dream of being able to work and live at the same place would be wonderful, and Hanne was inspired by a trip to Findhorn, where the community is set up to serve guests and makes a good income hereby, and suggests that an influx of money to the shared facilities in the eco-village might decrease her resistance.

Summary

Humans and non-humans are agencies interacting. Places of individual business in the eco-villages will modify the community, just like newcomers move in and old residents move out, the dynamic in the community change. The Outdoor project can be understood in terms of Bruno Latours insistence on non-human actors playing an influential role. The individual business opportunities, as non-human spaces, are the focal point and supply new conflicts and new dynamics to the communities.

Cultural Sociology project 2016

The community in `Village 1´ has so far accepted the process of the Outdoor project, being airy and uncertain, Eva and Sanne are balancing the project between `full speed forward´ and `slow-motion´.

The case of the Café in `Village 2´ I have not been able to visit `Village 2´ more than once, so the nuances of this project is how it is described to me by Søren and Anna, when I came to visit them. Anna started out by giving me a guided tour around the camp. There she described her plan to open a café with two other women;

“… it is going to be open for everybody, but we are the driving force, we have taken initiative to create an alternative to The Sponge (the pub), it is going to be free from alcohol … so we want this café to bee cosy, nice and quiet, not a new pub but a new meeting point … it must be nice and cosy … such a place is missing”

In `Village 2´ the conflict occurring is that the tolerant and anarchistic community is hard to manage inside, consensus among 75 people is a long and exhausting process, and inside the community there are several small and independent interest groups, micro-communities or fellowships, explained by Jens;

“There is a parental group having a fellowship around their children, the fathers are building a playground for the children, meeting once a week … there a fishermen going fishing and some of us are hiking together”

When you find allies in `Village 2´, you just go ahead and create activities, and the Café project is exemplifying this dynamic, where Anna and her allies are starting their café as a kind of `civil disobedience´ to their community, by taking this new public initiative, site it in a private house, and set it up to be ruled by the three of them, driven by the need for their community to be extended by an alternative meeting point.

Choosing a life in `Village 2´ demands a certain capacity, and Anna explains;

“You have to be strong to live here, it can be pretty rough, mentally, the pub is our only meeting point and if you can´t handle the harsh tone you can stay by your own house, but then you miss the fellowship”

To Anna the innovation of the new café in `Village 2´ is to be capable to modify the context of the fellowship in her community, and the café is set up to be an opponent to the pub and only the future can tell what kind of modifications the café will affect and which new hybrid fellowships will follow in `Village 2´.

The Nature of Facts – natural science in dispute with the rest of society The ANT approach is to follow the construction of facts, since we don´t know how all the actors are connected, we deploy the network in order to reveal the associations and follow them along the line. Either the actors

Cultural Sociology project 2016

transport –> intermediate or transform –> mediate the process and the scientist needs to be open-minded to trace associations. (Latour, 2005)

In the membership magazine by LØS from April 2016 the theme is set on ecological economy. There is a common experience in the milieu of eco-villages that there is a need for a transformation in the way we live and in the global economy. Niels Aagaard the chairman of LØS writes (Aagaard, 2016);

“It is science -not guessing or a political statement – humanity in this present moment directs towards a global catastrophe”

Niels Aagaard´s statement is part of this black-box in the milieu, a statement taken for granted and not being questioned; a drive for this transformation, which run as a red line running through all the articles. Niels Aagaard is in the same magazine having an interview with the Danish journalist Jørgen Steen Nielsen, who has written two books about this topic and is kind of a guru in this milieu, and he says that local cooperative business has the ability to dictate other considerations than the global businesses focusing on growth.

This underlying focus on sustainability is part of the business plan regarding the Outdoor project, but Eva and Sanne are still discussing how the company is going to be run internal, as a local cooperative or by them as owners with employees, or maybe a third solution.

It has not been possible in this paper to follow the network around the chairman, since there has been no responds to my requests.

Summary

In my empirical research the focus has pointed to the internal conflicts not that much on the underlying ideological or political issues, taken for granted in these communities. The need for transformation in the ecological and economical domain is the driven force in the creation of the eco-villages.

The types of studies done – in which sense can social science be empirical When choosing ANT as the theoretical approach the methodology comes along, using observations and interviews to “dig out” or map the network around the topic. According to Latour (2005, p. 123);

“We start in the middle of things … strangled by deadlines, and most of the things we have been studying we have ignored or misunderstood. Actions had already started; it will continue when we will no longer be around”

But there is no better way, according to Latour, and with these short-term visits in time and space you get the chance to dig out tiny galleries and if the text is good the social will appear through it.

Summary

The tiny gallery occurring from the network mapped around the workshop “Eco-villages and Business opportunities” indicates a variety of conflicts or dilemmas in the eco-villages. Around the Outdoor project the

Cultural Sociology project 2016

private interest of business is conflicting with the volunteer practise in the community of `Village 1´, while The Café project in `Village 2´ reacts on a lack of available meeting points.

Production and Reproduction of Neo-liberal Mentality Addressed by Guthman (2008), the neoliberal thinking and mentality is being adapted in the activist community, some of the examples met in this study came from the material describing the workshop;

“How do we get costumers to the Eco-villages as a learning environment? Who are the customers? Which needs do the customers´ have? What kind of developing possibilities do we see in the Eco-villages?”

Sanne explains how Eva and her has spent a lot of effort to think of their business as a part of the eco-village and the wish that both areas could help each other developing growth, and Eva tells that in order to boost their business, they had made a suggestion to do all the guided tours in the village, and then get the money for their business, and that was actually accepted by the community and she was surprised, since these tours normally were volunteer jobs sending the money in the community economy. Eva describes the dilemma around this issue of business versus volunteer work uses a phrase, maybe said by someone skeptical; “Why are they going to get money, I don´t get any money from growing carrots?”

Sissel and Hanne are skeptical and they feel insecure not knowing where the project will end and whether it will destroy the fragile balance developed in the community being run by volunteer work. Sanne and Eva experience that the skeptical residents are having a hard time being able to communicate their skepticism because in their community it is easier to be the ones presenting new ideas and dreams; the entrepreneurial agenda is part of the basic founding at `Village 1´, but still what have been presented according to the Outdoor project, has had the intention to balance the community, not being competitive and focusing on growth alone.

Conclusion Since every person, project and community must be treated as a specific kind of hybrid, to be grasped in relation to their network according the actor-network theory, the intention of the paper has been to unfold these networks in order to be able to answer the research question.

The need for an ecological and economic transformation is an agenda taken for granted in the communities of eco-villages. The tiny gallery of network mapped out in this paper indicates a variety of conflicts in the communities. By deploying the connections linked to the workshop of `Eco-villages and Business opportunities´ and going in depth with the project of the Outdoor project it has been possible to unveil the conflicts occurring when business opportunities are entering the shared community. The conflicts discussed in the community are as follows;

 Where are the limits for visitors/tourist in the community?  How is it possible to regulate the behavior of visitors/tourist?  How to balance a community based on volunteer work with individual business on shared land?

Cultural Sociology project 2016

 How does the community put an end to a business?

At `Village 1´ the facilitators of the Outdoor project are aware of the conflicts and try to balance the project between the pros and the cons. The meeting structure of the community encompasses tools to help balancing and navigate projects. The fact that the community is based on an entrepreneurial strategy to communicate results of their self-sufficient process creates a potential for producing a neo-liberal agenda. The community must be aware of this force since a business agenda creates pressure and insecurity to some of the residents.

The Café project in `Village 2´ unveils a conflict in the community which for 45 years has had the pub as their shared meeting point. The initiative of the café is to try to create a hybrid meeting point and the way the initiative are realised unveils how difficult it is to manage a project inside a consensus community of 75 people. Opening the Café in a private house free the women from having to state the project in a community meeting. According to Anna the no-alcohol policy will create a conflict among the residents, and the challenging task for the three women will be to keep consistent, this new hybrid meeting point creates new possibilities for the fellowship in the community. Whether it is going to be a success or not only time can tell.

The neo-liberal thinking in association with community-based societies, like the two in this research, can be a matter of concern but this research shows that the sake of the community, the fellowship, the well-being of the residents and the communication of self-sufficient lifestyle seems to be what drives the people. Their community project is prioritised above the business agenda.

I find that the creators to the two projects studied, were focused on stabilizing those controversies and to reassemble the social as a collective in order to the overall good of the community, and even though `Village 1´ had an entrepreneurial strategic decision in their regulations, and a strong network occur around Eva as a fact builder, the history of the cooperative community had teach them to focus on the wellbeing of the residents in the community and hybrid solutions will take some amount of time to implement in these communities.

Three questions for the oral exam

 Generalisability; validity and reliability; have I chosen the right cases for the research?  Have I managed to use the actor -network theory?- what was difficult, and what could I have done differently?  Choosing another theoretical approach, like Birmingham school where subculture is framed as an opposition to a hegemonic mass culture, how would the outcome of the research then become?

Cultural Sociology project 2016

Bibliography

Aagaard, N. (2016). Et bud på fremtidens økologiske økonomi. Økosamfund i Danmark - Medlemsblad for Landsfoeningen af Økosamfund, 4-9.

Blok, A., & Jensen, T. E. (2009). Bruno Latour - hybride tanker i en hybrid verden. Hans Reitzels Forlag.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2001). Eksemplets magt. I B. Flyvbjerg, Samfundsvidenskab som virker (s. 81-105). Akademisk Forlag.

Gobo, G. (2008). What to Observe; Social Structures, Talks and Contexts. I G. Gobo, Doing Ethnography (s. 162- 189). Sage Publication.

Guthman, J. (2008). Neoliberalism and the making of food politics in California. Geoforum 39, s. 1171-1183.

Jensen, P. D. (6.. Juni 2016). Fundament. Hentet fra selvforsyning.dk: http://selvforsyning.dk/

Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the Social; An Introduction to Actor-Network-Theory. Oxford University Press.

Nielsen, J. S. (2015). På den anden side. Informations Forlag.

Nyheder. (19.. April 2016). Hentet fra dr.dk: http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/regionale/syd/alternative- oekosamfund-popper-op-rundt-i-landet

Økosamfund og Erhvervsmuligheder . (15. May 2016). Hentet fra facebook: https://www.facebook.com/events/166040470429659/

Olesen, F., & Kroustrup, J. (2007). ANT - Beskrivelsen af heterogene aktør-netværk. I C. B. Jensen, Introduktion til STS - Science, Technology, Society (s. 63-92). Hans Reitzels Forlag.

Om LØS. (8.. Juni 2016). Hentet fra økosamfund: http://okosamfund.dk/