This is a CTP of initiative: Ecovillage Bergen (Netherlands)
This critical turning point refers to the visioning and group bonding process which preceded the purchase of the land for the ecovillage. The visioning and group bonding process started in the spring of 2011. The co-founders already had their eyes on a piece of land, two years before that piece of land was purchased in 2013. As such, much of the early visioning processes tended to focus on that particular piece of land. The critical turning point consisted of a reshifting in the visioning focus, from a focus on the physical land, to a focus on the group of people. This also included a shift from “a large group to a smaller hard core that was willing to buy the terrain and really go for it” (co-founder 3).
First, there had been a tendency to involve a wider group of people in the visioning process. Many people (over 40) were enthusiastic and wanted to be involved, but they soon discovered that “all these people had different visions, or no vision at all” (co-founder 1). When they started to develop a more integrated vision, the group became a lot smaller, from 40 to 10: “That was a good thing. It is important that we see the same image on the horizon, otherwise we are not going to make it together”.
During this visioning process, it became apparent that also within that group of 10, most people were focused on the physical location that was expected to become available for sale: “Also in the vision that we made, it appeared that people were mostly focused on the piece of land, but not on each other” (co-founder 1). This is when they decided to reshift their focus: “That land is not important, it is much more important that we are going to do that together. Whether or not that is here. And this is when we let go of the land. That was an important turning point. ‘Why are we doing it?’ That is also really part of the vision, rather than only thinking in terms of ‘We want to live here because it is a nice location’. To me, that [turning point] was quite essential”(co-founder 1).
This critical turning point in itself was a process of co-producing a vision and a group constellation. Starting off with a group of 40 people, they condensed into a group of 10 people, who together developed the vision and the plan that eventually led to the bid that was successful for purchasing the land.
The decision to re-shift the focus from the land to the group of people, was to a large extent informed by a desire to create an ecovillage in the sense of an intentional community, rather than just any ecological housing project. Co-founder 1 recalls: “It actually happened at the moment that we started to make the vision. That is when we saw that we were with 40 people that actually have very different ideas on what we want here. That we were not at all occupied with each other, but only looking at the land. Because it was a location that appealed to the imagination of many people. It became a matter of who could get the biggest piece of land. We suddenly saw this, and that there was no coherence in the group. Just that some thought that ‘this is a nice piece of land, I can see myself living here in a nice house’. That was not at all my idea… this is not what a community is. I discovered that we were not a community, we were a group of people that wanted to go live there together but not really collectively”.
The emphasis on the community aspect was confirmed by the encounter with the ecovillage movement in the summer of 2011, which made the co-founders realise how important the community aspect is in an ecovillage. As co-founder 1 formulates: “That is when I discovered that an ecovillage is really different from an eco-neighbourhood. The community, that is what it is about”. Developing such a community, is not an easy task: “The social aspect I find the most difficult, the most important and also the most appealing”.
One of the dilemmas involved is that ecovillage initiatives tends to attract many different kinds of people, also people who are not always willing or able to contribute what is necessary to make the ecovillage project succeed. “There are a lot of people attracted to this place who don’t make it in the outside world. They have a beautiful playground here, where they are given shelter. But those are not the people with whom you are going to build and ecovillage (…) I sometimes get nervous about the proportion of people who can carry the weight compared to the people who are looking for a safe haven. Those are also welcome, but it needs to be in proportion”.
There were several earlier and later events that related to this critical turning point. First, there was the discovery of the piece of land in 2011 and the information in 2012 that it would become available for sale.
During the early visioning phase, the co-founders discovered the ecovillage movement and participated in the Global Ecovillage Network conference in Tamera Ecovillage (Portugal) 7-11 July 2011 and they also visited another ecovillage (see CTP DISCOVERING OTHER ECOVILLAGES).
During the visioning phase, there were several visioning meetings in 2011-2012. [FDdAA1] One particular meeting, back when there were still 40 people involved, stood out for its intense and disruptive nature, which is referred to as the “Black Weekend”. An external facilitator from another ecovillage facilitated this meeting, using the format of ‘The Forum’, a method that is more commonly used in several ecovillage. (The Forum format essentially consists of a group of participants sitting in a circle: one individual moves to the middle of the circle openly sharing his/her feelings, while the facilitator asks questions to go deeper; then the participant moves back to the circle and the other participants give feedback). That particular Forum meeting turned out to become very intense, emotional and unpleasant, as one participant was excluded from the group and was told by the facilitator and other participants that “s/he did not belong there”.
Until this day, the co-founders regret the way that process unfolded. At that moment they had trusted and followed the facilitator, but later realised that they should not have, as the facilitator was taking a far too aggressive approach. Co-founder 3 describes their regret as follows: “We are still a bit traumatised from it. That did not go well at all. It was not decent the way we handled that, and it still bugs everyone a bit. When you are excluded from a group; that is almost the worst thing that can happen to you. No matter what the arguments are, even if there are hundreds of people, it just does not feel good. We did not have the right tools to handle that”. Similarly, co-founder 1 looks back at it as follow: “In hindsight I think ‘wow, this is not how we want to treat people’. The process did clarify all sorts of things, but it was very intense and it wasn’t exactly a thing of beauty. Apparently it had to happen that way. I think that in the end it was necessary, but the way in which it happened… I would never do it like that again”.
Eventually, after the whole visioning process happened, the land was purchased in 2013, which is considered a critical turning point in itself (see CTP “PURCHASING THE LAND”).
Once there was a group of 10 people to focus the visioning process, it became clear that also within that smaller group, there were significant differences in opinion. There was a “split in the core group”, a bifurcation between those who were more thinking in terms of a small-scale co-housing project, versus those who were thinking in terms of a more ambitious ecovillage project aiming to contribute to a different society. “Do you just want a comfortable house or do you want to change the world? Do you want to invite people, gather and spread knowledge? Do you want to make an important contribution to your environment? Those are issues where the differences of opinion are large”.
In the meantime, however, it became more and more apparent that they could buy the land, and so they decided to reshift their focus back on getting the land. A decision was made to not dive too much in the different opinions and disagreements within the group, and instead to focus on getting the land. As co-founder 1 describes: “At that point we just wanted everyone on board, we just had to move forward. So within that group of 10 people, we agreed not to be too critical, otherwise we would lose even more people. There was a real possibility of buying the land, so we needed to press ahead. That was bonding, we had a collective goal to get this piece of land. That gave as connection and focus again. (…) This is when we decided, now we can concentrate on that land again, and if that does not work out, we will go elsewhere. (…) Also for me that was a matter of letting go of that dream”.
Interestingly, the ‘split’ in the core group, is still alive today as it was never resolved at the beginning. Or more precisely, the bifurcation in the group re-emerged after the common goal of getting the land was reached. As co-founder 1 formulates: “Now we have a legacy that we have people with different angles and within the core group this is still a worry, that the collectivity is actually too weak (...) You see this more often, when that phase of construction is over, then you're looking at each other thinking ‘we live in our houses, we know each other well but it’s non-committal. We are not really involved with each other’. We are good neighbours but that is very non-committal, while in an ecovillage it should be more unconditional. We had that common goal [of getting the land], which was really very bonding, but the moment that we entered the gates, the diversity surfaced again".
Besides the split in the group regarding the level of transformative ambition, there are also other disagreements and tensions. One disagreement revolves around the extent to which people want to make and follow rules, including different needs and attitudes regarding safety and risk-aversion. Another tension lies between different personalities: “There are doers, dreamers and celebrators. You see that the doers get very impatient. During a bonding day, they will say ‘when can we finally go do something?’ This is a recurring point of tension” (co-founder 1).
In order to deal with and overcome contestations and tensions within the group, Ecovillage Bergen uses several communication tools. Once a month, they organise ‘connection days’ where they work with a variety of methods, such as ‘The Forum’, ‘The Wave of Council’, ‘The Heart Circle’ or ‘The Game Creation’, all designed for group communication. “I find that important, to continue to develop social communication skills, and to keep having fun. Those are two very essential components. Eating together is a fun thing, working together is a fun thing, and developing those skills together. During those connections days, we really work on that”.
Co-founder 1 emphasises that it is essential that residents are willing to participate in such group sessions, and that s/he finds it difficult if people do not want to participate. The same applies to (openness towards) spirituality. At the beginning, when there was still a group of 40 people, there had been some people who had been “allergic” to spiritual talk. “Those have dropped behind. If you do not want to associate with those things, than your worldview is so different from mine… then I find it difficult to live in community with you” (co-founder 1).
The shifting of the focus from the land towards the group of people, was clearly perceived as a critical turning point at that time. “Yes, we really decided to leave the land for what it is. It was a bit painful, but also good to feel that. And it was good to be exposed and ask: ‘what connects us, except for the land’? We realised that the land was secondary, and that we had to search what our primary connection was” (co-founder 1).
It seems like the co-founders anticipated and understood several elements of the group process, based on insights from other initiatives and approaches to group building. During the interview, co-founder 1 referred to several of those approaches, including the Transition Handbook of the Transition Towns movement, the method of Dragon Dreaming, the work of best-selling author Scott Peck on community work[FDdAA3] , and the exchanges between ecovillages within the Global Ecovillage Network. On several occasions, the co-founder emphasised that processes at Ecovillage Bergen, including the tensions, were an inherent part of a natural process that one often sees in community projects. The co-founder also recognises that there is a certain “spiral” of convergence and divergence within the group.
Co-founder 1 indicates that he would have liked to do everything differently, but at the same time, realises that it is necessary to make mistakes. “If I could do it again I would do it really differently. This is also why I find the idea of experimenting so important, and that one can learn from other communities. On the other hand, you also need to make your own mistakes. Yes, that space really needs to be there. Otherwise it will not work” (co-founder 1).
One of the main lessons from this critical turning point was to see the ecovillage project as an ‘academy’, an ‘experiment’ and a ‘school’. “From the very beginning, I felt that it is an academy: it’s not a village but an academy. It is an academy of life, we are here to learn the art of living”. The fact that it is a school, also means that it can be very confronting, and that it requires a willingness towards individual learning and growth. “In a community, you get a lot of mirrors. You need to be able to cope with that. That is quite confrontational (...). It has also taught me a lot. People who come here must be willing to take place in the academy and learn about life and about who they are. (...) I think that's the art of this school, it's about the art of living, you get to know yourself better and you learn to accept each other. What you want together, there should be enough overlap to do that together. I find that very exciting and very important. If everyone would do that, the world would look very different. Then the transition would actually already be made."
Another important lesson that was drawn, was the need for social group bonding and spiritual connection, and that the co-founder would have liked to start earlier with that. This also relates to the development of self-awareness and inner transformation. Co-founder 1 emphasises that s/he also had to go through such personal process and needed to learn to let go of certain things: “I started this and it still is my baby. The aim is to let that go of that and I find that letting go very difficult. I started to get annoyed with people who come here and want to determine how we do things here. As if this whole place just emerged out of nowhere, as if they don’t know what it took to get here, as if they do not know who I am. I am ashamed when I say this (…) [It took me a while to realise that] nobody has asked me to take the initiative, so no one needs to thank me for it. It is me who should be grateful that there is this role and that I fulfil it with pleasure, but no one needs to have gratitude for that. That [insight] gave me total relaxation". Co-founder 3 also indicates that there are still things to learn in terms of communication: “To be more honest with each other (…) How can you give constructive criticism? How can I be less bothered by things? It’s about lots of personal things, but also about doing them together. How do you deal with each other, how do you develop yourself also socially speaking?”
A final lesson, which is emphasised repeatedly, was that the co-founders realised the importance having a selection process for people to join the ecovillage, an issue that they are currently (anno 2016) still figuring out. This dilemma of selecting people is particularly pertinent when an ecovillage projects aims to be accessible for low income groups, which is the case in Ecovillage Bergen. Co-founder 1 describes an instance in which s/he had a conversation with another ecovillage initiative in the Netherlands, whose people found it an ‘intolerant idea’ to have a pre-screening selection process. However, the co-founder argues that in many other ecovillage initiatives there is already a pre-selection due to financial exclusion: “It is easy for you to talk when you build houses of 200.000 to 300.000; those mostly attract highly educated people who also have an affinity with sustainability. Then you have already made your selection by the type of project that you offer. We are working on a much more accessible scale. So we get a lot of people who have different ideas and we cannot integrate all that in this project”. In ecovillage Bergen, it is argued that such self-selection does not take place, as emphasised by co-founder 3: “Our introduction days attracts many volunteers, some of them have never even heard the word ecovillage. They find it all very pleasant and social and then they also bring friends along. There is no automatic self-selection; it actually goes in the opposite direction”. As such, some form of selection is necessary, while at the same time considered very hard: “It is very difficult to say who belongs here and who doesn’t. We are now working on a profile: what kind people are we actually willing and able to have here? It is very difficult. You do not want to judge people" (co-founder 3).
Ideas that are being discussed for the selection procedures include in-depth interviews with interested individuals on what motivates them to join. “Why do you come here? You need to be able to give a conscious response to that (...) And it must be a selfish reason, otherwise I do not believe you. Otherwise you would not come here. You come here in order to get better from it. If that is not the reason, I distrust it. ‘I want to save nature and the world’: I do not believe that, I want an underlying, selfish reason. That can be very confronting (…). We will soon propose a format to go into such depth. It will be about ‘what am I getting out of it’, and you also need to know ‘what can I offer’. The group that we started with has not been through that selection, and we notice that now. We are confronted with quite some differences in the core group" (co-founder 3).
Stay informed. Subscribe for project updates by e-mail.
