Devin Mc Comber
2 April
2006
Oneida Commune
& the many lovers of John Humphrey Noyes
I. Background
John Humphrey Noyes was born on
September 3, 1811
[1] to an old and respected New
England family
[2]. Noyes was a precocious
learner and thoughtful. As a child he used to say that he wanted to go to bed
early so he could think.
[3] After graduating
from Dartmouth in 1830, Noyes pursued the study of law, but soon gave up law to
dedicate his life to Jesus Christ
[4]. The Second
Great Awakening in 1831 delivered Noyes from the path of law to the path of God.
After reluctantly attending a church revival, Noyes wrestled with Satan and the
spirit of unbelief, until “light gleamed upon his soul” and he
decided to devote himself to God.
[5] Noyes
entered Andover Seminary to study religion and ministry, but found his fellow
students less than passionate and transferred to Yale Theological
School.
[6]
In August 1833, Noyes received
his license to preach from Yale and by February 1834 Noyes was asked to resign
his license and withdraw from the college
premises.
[7] Prior to the expulsion, between 1833
and 1834, Noyes discovered and studied Wesleyan Perfectionism which advocated
Entire Sanctification
(holiness, perfection), a doctrine of spiritual
transformation.
[8]
It is understood as an experience of grace, subsequent to salvation, with the
effect that the Holy Spirit takes full possession of the soul, sanctifies the
heart, and empowers the will so that one can love God and others blamelessly in
this life. The power of sin in the believer's life is either eradicated or
rendered inoperative as one participates in the higher life of the
divine.
[9] Although Wesleyan Perfectionism
advocated the way of perfect holiness, the church did not expect or require
sinlessness from
people.
[10]
To Noyes perfection could only be achieved though sinlessness and the
idea that one wasn’t expected to be perfect was hypocritical to the ideal
of Perfectionism.
On February 20, 1834 (High Tide of the Spirit), John Humphrey Noyes declared
that “He that committeth sin is of the devil.” A fellow student
asked Noyes “Don’t you commit sin?” Noyes answered,
“No.” Within a few hours word spread through the college and New
Haven that Noyes believed he was perfect and that Noyes was, in fact, crazy.
After a hearing regarding Noyes’ proclamation, the faculty association
allowed him to resign his license and asked him to withdraw from the
University.
[11]
The following years of Noyes
life were characterized by both outward tumult and inward uncertainty. Noyes
suffered from the rejection by his college, church, friends, and family. He
wandered, often on foot and without money, the length and breadth of New England
and New York, preaching and spreading his new
faith.
[12]
Noyes began publication of a circular called the Perfectionist
(followed by a second publication called The
Witness).
[13] During the late 1830s and early
40s John Humphrey Noyes first developed ideas regarding “Bible
Communism” and “Complex Marriage” and the beginnings of a new
way of life.
[14]
II.
History of the Commune
John Humphrey Noyes married
Harriet Horton in 1838; she shared his perfectionist views and provided greatly
need financial resources. Noyes lacked a romantic attachment to Harriet, but he
thought she would make a suitable partner for his
work.
[15] The Noyes family settled in Putney,
Vermont and began their experiments into their unique communal ideals. The
community was officially consolidated on about November 1, 1846 with the signing
of the Statement of Principals.
[16] Seven
leaders of the community agreed in writing:
We,
the undersigned, hold the following principals as the basis of our social union:
1.
All individual proprietorship of either persons or things is surrendered and
absolute community of interests takes the place of the law and fashions which
preside over property and family relations in the world.
2. God as the ultimate and absolute owner of our persons and possessions is
installed as the director of our combinations and the distributor of property.
His spirit is our supreme regulator.
3.
John H. Noyes is the father and overseer whom the Holy Ghost has set over the
family thus constituted. To John H. Noyes as such we submit ourselves in all
things spiritual and temporal, appealing form his decisions only to the spirit
of God, and that without disputing.
4.
We pledge ourselves to these principals without reserve; and if we fall away
from them, let God and our signature be witness against
us.
[17]
Complex Marriage (each male
member of the community is married to each and every female community member)
was officially instituted by the above cited document and simultaneously made
the community infamous. The commune was forced to abandon Vermont when Noyes was
arrested for adultery in 1847 and relocated in early 1848 to Oneida, NY. By the
end of the calendar year of 1848 the commune consisted of 87
people.
[18]
After several years of financial struggle, the people of the Oneida
community began manufacturing steel animal traps, which gave the community a
sound economic base. The community thrived for over thirty years, but
eventually the new of way life failed. The final years of the Oneida Community
were tumultuous and unhappy; internal dissension wracked the community and the
issue of Noyes’s successor remained in
doubt.
[19]
The declining ability of the
aging and increasingly deaf John Humphrey Noyes set the stage for the
community’s breakup. No other leader would emerge to full Noyes’s
place.
[20] In 1877, Theodore Noyes (John
Humphrey Noyes’s eldest and only legitimate child) officially took over
the leadership of the Community; his medical studies at Yale made him well
educated, but caused him to abandon his belief in God. Theodore was not
considered a wise enough leader, nor was a society, founded on a strong
Christian belief, satisfied with an atheist as a spiritual
leader.
[21] A faction challenging the old
order and calling for reform coalesced around James William Towner, a capable
leader, but he was unable to secure enough support to gain
command.
[22] The weak leadership was combined
with a decline in commitment of the group to ideals to cement its dissolution.
The younger generation of adults had a more skeptical and secular bent. Without
the strong commitment to communal values, it became more and more difficult to
justify the intense self-sacrifice necessary to make the community
work.
[23]
An external attack against
Oneida by Reverend John W. Mears began in the mid-1870s, alone it posed no real
threat.
[24] It was not an attack directly
aimed at Oneida, but was anger directed at sexual deviation in
general.
[25] Oneida faced the same attacks
through out its history. Further, the immediate community surrounding Oneida
considered the group responsible and believed they ought to be left alone. The
Oneida community provided jobs and economic stability for the surrounding
community. In fact, Puck, a satirical journal printed a cartoon that skewered
Oneida critics. The cartoon showed a band of self-righteous ministers pointing
at Oneida and declaring “Oh, dreadful! They dwell in peace and harmony and
have no church scandal. They must be wiped
out.”
[26] If Oneida had a leader to
unite the community the attack by outsiders would have been completely
insignificant. However, the internal toils of the community allowed the
external attack to further weaken its commitment to God and to each other.
Internal tensions not external tensions were the key to the Oneida crisis and
subsequent demise.
The end of the Oneida Community
truly began with the dissolution of Complex Marriage. On August 28, 1879 the
Oneida Community announced its return of the practice of traditional
marriage.
[27]
The internal struggles in the community accelerated with the end of
Complex Marriage; family interest undermined attachment to the group interests.
On January 1, 1881 the Oneida Community ended and in its place the Oneida
Community, Limited was formed.
[28] The assets
of the old Community were divided in the form of stock in the
company.
Until
1895, when Pierrepoint Noyes rescued the company, Oneida Community, Ltd.
stumbled along, making some money in good years, and barely scraping by in poor
years.
[29] In 1917, Pierrepont Noyes
relinquished the control of the company after making it a true
success.
[30] Today, Oneida Ltd. is publicly
traded and one of the world’s largest marketers of stainless steel
flatware; and offers a complete range of tabletop products. It has operations
in the United States, Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom and
Australia.
[31] Oneida started out as a way of
life followed by less than four hundred people, it evolved into a lucrative
business that has lasted well over one hundred years.
III. Communal
Life
A. DAILY LIFE
Food,
housing, and warmth were provided for all at the Oneida Community; the
member’s financial state was one of
communism.
[32] The Community built a large
communal unitary home (the Mansion House); the inside of the house contained a
number of small private and semi-private rooms for sleeping and other purposes,
supplemented by a large and attractive library, several communal sitting rooms
which provided comfortably furnished centers for Community life, and a large
intimate hall.
[33] The large hall of the
Mansion House served many functions. Arguably, the most important activity in
the hall was the nightly religious and business
meeting.
[34] The meeting was attended by all
the adult members of the community.
[35] The
Community has no formal religious service on Sunday or on other days. There was
no church or chapel. Neither baptismal nor communion services were utilized.
Since there were no marriages, there were no
weddings.
[36] Death was played down and
Christmas was not celebrated. The religion and moral concerns of the group were
raised in the evening meetings. Rather than have special religious cerebrations
or set aside special days for worship, the Community believed that every day
should involve religious awareness. The Community members were avid readers of
the Bible and loved to discuss various
parables.
[37] Most importantly and distinctly,
the community believed that by listening to John Humphrey Noyes they were
listening to the voice of God. The hall, also, housed activities such as
dancing, plays, concerts, skits, and educational
classes.
[38] The Mansion House even had a
Turkish bath. The community was a both lively and tranquil home. Members,
could if they wished, travel or visit the outside world, but few chose to avail
themselves of the opportunity. Supposedly, there were too many attractions at
home. However, literature created by the community discusses the need to
minimize contact with the outside world too maintain spirituality. The Community
did not live in luxury, but neither did it live a Spartan
life.
[39] The daily life of an Oneidan can best
be described by one of their published articles:
Five
o’clock! Stillness reigns from [attic] to cellar. Six o’clock! The
whistle sounds. Little bare feet pattering along the main hall on their way to
the children’s room to be dressed – the first glad sound of morning.
Laughing voices ringing through the empty halls and corridors arouse the
sleepers from their dreams. Half an hour and there is a noise of footsteps,
some light and some heavy, constantly hurrying up and down the long stairway
form the Mansard; the noise of chairs and tables hastily shoved about, and the
rumble of bedsteads in the many chambers around the house. Another half hour
and the women are at their several callings – bed-making, sweeping halls,
tidying up the parlors, mopping and dusting the library, and putting things to
rights generally. Meanwhile a tril of active cooks are getting breakfast for
the fifteen “titmen” of the family, who file out of the dinning room
at seven o’clock. Some of the men go to the shop, some are out on the
farm, some are at the barn, one or two are in the printing office, a few are
reading in the library, and the rest are in their rooms till eight o’clock
when the whistle call them one and all to breakfast. By the hour of nine the
people are scattered to their various assignments – trap-shop,
machine-shop, silk-room, business-office, printing-office, kitchen, dining-room,
laundry, company-room, etc. The children with their guardians start off for the
lot east of the road, and the people who remain are tending our youngest, or
making their clothes, or taking care of the various concerns of the
household.... Cooks and waiters are stepping lively to get dinner in readiness
at one o’clock. At twelve the bells ring, and the older children go to
school, and the younger ones to bed. Stillness reigns for the next two hours.
At three the whistle calls to dinner; there’s a thronging toward the
dining-room and the two hundred discuss the viands temptingly laid out. Dinner
over, and many resume their labors until six o’clock, when the family are
all again at home. People are meeting in the court, vestibule, or in the
sitting-rooms to tell the latest news; young and old mingle in croquet on the
lawn, or at dominoes in the house, as the case may be. Many are reading, or
studying, or writing; the children are frolicking below stairs; it is a time of
rest and relaxation, and the home feeling predominates. All concentrate in the
hall at eight for a family meeting; some interesting topic draws out the
enthusiasm of all who are present. Meeting closes at nine, and people disperse,
some to the nursery kitchen, and some to their own bedrooms. At
ten-o’clock the house is still. The watchman goes quietly round on his
mission; he locks the doors- puts out the lights- darkness and tranquility till
morning.
A
Panoramic View, Circular, August 18, 1873
The overall pleasant environment
described above is supported by general research consulted on the Community.
The Oneida Community appeared to be without crime and
scandal
[40]; God and communal ideals set the
stage for the development of their comfortable home and family.
Everything the Community members
did was designed to play down “I” in favor of “we.”
Members ate together, worked together, and played together. The members shared
property, sexual partners, and their
children
[41]. Tea, coffee, alcoholic
beverages, pork products, and smoking were prohibited at Oneida because they had
the potential to be habitual and distractive, weakening one’s connection
to the community. Smoking was specifically prohibited because it was considered
to individualistic, while dancing was encouraged since it was a group
activity.
[42]
There was no such thing as
demeaning labor at the Oneida Community. A person was respected for the spirit
with which he or she completed the work rather than for the work itself.
Community members also rotated jobs to keep stay off boredom and other spiritual
evils.
[43] .
B. LEADERSHIP &
RELIGION
The beginning of community life really began with Noyes
proposal to Harriet Holton. Noyes proposed to Holton “a partnership which
I will not call marriage. “ Noyes did not have a romantic love for Holton,
but instead found a woman that demonstrated an unswerving loyalty to him and his
ideas.
[44] Holton was “safe”
sexually and not likely to make special demands on him. Holton was capable and
hard working, and willing to be shaped according to his
desires.
[45] Also, as cited above, she had
money. The Holton-Noyes marriage was the first of many sacrifices that was
made for the benefit of the community. In his marriage, as well as in all
aspects of the community life, Noyes subordinated individual wills and
self-interest to the larger communal goals.
[46]
Noyes’ next step in the
preparation of communal life was to assert complete authority over his entire
family. Noyes secured the loyalty of his younger brother George, as well as two
of his sisters, Harriet and Charlotte. Eventually, he arranged that his sisters
marry his two closest followers, John L. Skinner and John R.
Miller.
[47] In 1939, Noyes finally gained the
allegiance of his mother when she finally stated that her son was “to me a
teacher and father in spiritual
things.”
[48]
Noyes required total authority
and control over the community. As early as 1837, Noyes declared that he
“would never connect [himself] with any individual or association in
religion unless [he] were the acknowledged leader.”
[49] Later, Noyes described his ideal model for
the government of his community at Oneida an “absolute monarchy,”
with authority coming from the top, yet decisions tempered by the concerns of
the membership below. Noyes, was the supreme leader who benevolently delegated
authority to loyal subordinates who would do the actual work of implementing his
ideals.
[50] The dogma of Noyes was either
completely accepted by an individual in which case the individual was made part
of the brotherhood of self-sacrificing quest for the Kingdom of God or the
individual rejected it and was turned away. Although, the religious beliefs of
the Onieda Community seem greatly radical, the community in fact provided a
sense of security and a satisfying new set of absolutes to replace the
capriciousness of revivalist religion.
[51]
The Oneida Community was
founded on three theological principals. The first principal centers on the
nature and use of pleasure. According to Noyes, “In reality the whole
circle of enjoyments- enjoyment of food, of intellectual pleasures, of love in
all its forms—is the enjoyment of
God.”
[52] God is present within every
living thing. The world of creatures leads man to God: an attraction to matter
is really the call of God. Therefore according to Noyes there is divinity in
eating a peach, as there is divinity in sex. The act of sex, Noyes taught his
followers, becomes an act of fellowship with God when one recognizes the Lord in
the relationship one is sharing. The spiritual man enjoys pleasure, not less
so, but more intensely than his idolatrous neighbor. When Noyes rebuked his
followers for the “pleasure-seeking spirit”, he was attacking their
narrow-minded, paltry satisfaction with a pleasure which was but a pale
imitation of the true happiness waiting the man who seeks God in all matters.
True Christianity was not an enemy of pleasure and happiness, but its friend and
champion. Jesus instructed his disciples: seek first the kingdom of God, and
all things shall be given to you. According to Noyes, this meant that the man
who seeks God in every action, in every pleasure, in every attraction, shall not
only find God, but shall also find himself heir to all the treasures which the
material world can offer. The orthodox churches, Noyes believed, attempted to
suppress, even annihilate, the passions of man, instead of suborning them into
God’s service.
[53] Christianity must
learn again, Noyes stated, to value the passions as sources of great strength
and power, which when properly controlled, aid a man in the search for holiness.
According to Noyes, the selfish spirit of which the world is full, and not the
teachings of Jesus, is the deadly enemy of
pleasure.
[54]
The second theological principal
used in the development of complex marriage recognizes that everything is part
of a single entity and therefore followers are to abandon the illusion of
individuality.
[55] Unfortunately, Noyes
admitted, recognition of this basic truth does not come easily to man; there is
a repugnance of the heart to the notion that each is not his own. A harm that
follows upon the illusion of individualism is possessiveness. Noyes frequently
encouraged confessions to Christ, for every time a member recalled their
connection with Christ and with each other, the “we spirit” would
prevail over the “I spirit”, over the weak, sickly, unruly position
of individualism. The man who views his world, and other men, as separate
entities seeks to sequester, to own or posses, a multitude of objects and
pleasures for himself views others as competitors, whom he must exclude, outwit,
and outrun.
[56] Material pleasures, which
should be a means of holiness, become occasions of competition, envy, jealousy,
and pain when they are sought by men imbued with a spirit of individualism and
the consequent need to own and hoard objects of pleasure. According to Noyes,
ownership adds nothing to the original enjoyment of something; rather it
destroys the true pleasure of it. Ownership brings with it cares and worries
which are unhealthy and more than life can bear; concern for property is a
poison which slowly kills the spirit of man. However, when there is no
ownership, no willful holding into property and excluding of others, the pain is
removed and there remains only the unadulterated pleasure which the world offers
to those who do not try to posses its
treasures.
[57] Christ said: “Except a
man forsake all that he hath....” This according to the theology of
Oneida, was not intended as an indictment of enjoyment, nor intended to
inculcate neglect or indifference to the good things of the world. Rather,
according to Noyes’ interpretation, Christ was counseling men to forsake
the desire to possess the things which they find pleasant. Christ himself
possessed nothing, not even a place to lay his head, because private ownership
is inconsistent with that kingdom he came to
establish.
[58] The Perfectionists were not
enemies of pleasure but of possessiveness; the single factor separating
healthful and unhealthful enjoyment of pleasure. The Oneida Community
maintained that to say: “I enjoy this thing and I will have it for mine,
and no one else shall have it, is counterproductive and diabolical, because
experience testifies that this stance brings with it only disappointment and
disgust.” Due to the theological principal that every pleasure leads to
the same pervading principal, God; that every pleasure, no matter how small its
out-ward inducements, provides and opening into infinite depth, mystery, and joy
(see above).” There is no need, then for disappointment when one
particular pleasure, one object, one honor, one love is not available; there is
always other objects which can give access onto the same source of pleasure.
And because there is always access to pleasure there is no reason to for man to
amass private possessions. Also, since men are all part of one whole, it is
possible for one man to share in the joys of another. Thus a man can
participate in the pleasure of another. The man who is aware of the power of
sympathetic enjoyment, and who works to develop it, finds no need for ownership,
no occasion for selfishness, envy, or
competition.
[59] Oneida Perfectionists
believed that pleasure was better for being enjoyed with, and through, others.
The third theological principal
is inspiration: one person can penetrate and take over the spirit of another, so
that the former can influence the thoughts, words, and actions of the
latter.
[60] The phenomenon was explained as
magnetism; just as a magnet exudes an invisible force which can control the
action of objects with which it is not in physical contract, so too, the mind
generates a kind of physical force best compared to electricity or magnetism
which can permeate the senses, muscles, and faculties of another, and control
them. A man constantly generates spiritual, invisible influence which
communicates his consciousness to the minds around him, influencing in turn
their thoughts, actions, and sensations. Along with inspiration comes the
female and male principals. The female principal is the ability to
“inspire” another, while the male principal includes the ability to
receive inspiration from those more powerful and the ability to inspire or
transmit power to those less perfect. Both males and females have both types of
principals within themselves. Noyes taught that salvation began with God the
Father filling his Son with his power, the Son in turn having as female received
the Father’s power within himself, turns, as male, transforms the souls of
the primitive church. The church, first receives as a female, and then passes
on their power as a male to the people on
Earth.
[61] The Oneida Community followed the
same scheme among themselves; Noyes of coarse was at the top of the chain,
helping God transmit his grace and power among the community.
C. COMMUNAL
AUTHORITY
Throughout Oneida’s history John Humphrey Noyes was known
as “Father” Noyes.
[62] Noyes
controlled the spiritual administration of the community and hence controlled
the major day to day decisions of the community member’s lives. He
decided the activities the community would engage and suggested which members
could have children and when they ought to have
children.
[63] Father Noyes’s power
lasted until old age when his health failed him and he was forced to withdraw
from directing the community.
[64]
Noyes allowed a few hand picked
men to help lead the community, but there power was limited and completely
dependent on Noyes. Noyes’s men existed to carry out his directives and
where called “apostolic deputies” or “lieutenants” by
the community members. The community equated Noyes’s
“lieutenants” to Christ’s
disciples.
[65] Generally, the men chosen for
leadership roles were more educated and spiritually developed than the typical
Oneida member. The male leaders counseled with Noyes in his private living
quarters concerning important community decisions, spoke at evening meetings,
and wrote ideological articles for Oneida
publications.
[66]
Women were not consulted
regarding important community decisions. Rather, certain prestigious women in
the community were used to explain and secure female obedience to the ideas
developed by Noyes and his male leaders.
[67]
Women of prestige were described as “mothers” or “aunts”
of the community. In fact, Noyes’s wife, favorite lover, and two sisters
were the women of influence.
[68] However, both
female and male leading members appeared to have been exempt from the more
mundane work assignments.
[69]
The majority of the adults at
Oneida, both male and female, were at the bottom of the community hierarchy;
they functioned as children in the collective family. The community as a whole,
upon entering the community, gave up their independence to Father Noyes.
[70] The community believed in Noyes’s
wisdom as a prophet of God and the obedience that went along with that belief.
Noyes’s divine authority could not be challenged. However, every member
of the community member had a voice and was encouraged to speak out at evening
meetings to discuss any and all issues.
[71]
D. COMMITTEES
Smaller day to day operational decisions were made by committees and
departments. There were twenty-one standing committees and forty-eight
different departments. Heating, clothing, patent rights, photographs,
haircutting, fruit preserving, music, dentistry, bedding, and paintings, all
involved committees or departments. There was also a department for
incidentals.
[72] There were enough committees
and departments to allow everyone an opportunity to have a real voice in the
management of the Community.
[73]
A side effect of the numerous
committee and committee meetings is that the community was always changing.
Much of the change was meaningless, but never the less change was often
instituted. The Community members changed their work schedule, their meal
schedule, and the number of meals severed per day. The prohibition on smoking
was years in the making. The Oneida community changed their jobs and their way
of doing things, they even had a habit of changing their
rooms.
[74] The Community believed that:
“when one keeps constantly in a rut, he is especially exposed to attacks
of evil. The devil knows just where to find
him!”
[75]
The nearly eighty specialized
groups running the day to day operations of the community was not the most
efficient government, but it worked and it worked well for the Community’s
entire existence. The Oneida community functioned with almost no major quarrel.
The lack of efficiency was replaced with community members feeling important and
significant.
E. MEMBERSHIP AND
SECESSION
Membership at the Oneida Community was not a problem. The
community was never going to expand to cover all of the United States, but
neither did the community fail due to lack of membership. The community had
more trouble keeping prospective members out than in. At any given time there
were around three hundred members.
[76] Within
the early years of the Community there were seven branches (Oneida, NY; Willow
Place, NY; Cambridge, Vermont; Newark, New Jersey; Wallingford, Connecticut; New
York City; NY; and Putney, Vermont) all under the leadership of John Humphrey
Noyes.
[77]
Except during the early periods,
the Community did little or no active proselytizing. Yet they reported no
difficulty in attracting members. In 1873, the Community received over two
hundred application.
[78] The retention rate of
the Community was quite high; 84 of the 109 adult members that joined within the
first two years at Oneida either died in the community or lived there until the
breakup.
[79] The Oneida Community was
successful and that was all that was necessary for word to spread quickly and
crate interest. The Community’s own publications and the popular press
permitted wide coverage. Noyes traveled and lectured extensively on the
Community.
[80]
Applicants were carefully
screened before they were accepted for membership. Once a person or family was
accepted there was a probation period of about a year. During the probation
period the community was to determine if the new comers adjusted to Community
life and whether they had the necessary devoutness. Most new members adjusted
very well.
[81] The persons admitted to the
community were primarily from the middle class and upper class; the community
included lawyers, dentists, doctors, teachers, engineers, accountants,
ministers, and business managers.
[82] The
stability of the Commune is speculated to be one of the major draws to community
members. Most members were in an emotionally unsettled state when they joined
the community. The members had been religious “seekers” that were
distressed by the emotional ups and downs of the revivalist religion of the
times; Noyes promised to provide “salvation from sin” within a
stable, supportive, and authoritative communal structure.
[83]
Although most of the members
were happy with their decision to join the Oneida community, some were not and
each year a few individuals left. The actual number of members that left the
community is unknown, but it was not more than three adults per
year.
[84] The individuals generally left
because they couldn’t adjust to sharing sex partners or the economic
philosophy. Others joined for the wrong reasons and quickly became
disillusioned. Those who chose to leave were permitted to take anything they
brought with them. Those that came with nothing were given one hundred
dollars.
[85] There was only one case where a
member, William Mills, had to be forcibly removed Charles Guiteau was highly
unstable member that left the community in 1867, fourteen years later he
assassinated President Garfield.
[86] However,
most often, those who left the community did so with good will regarding the
Community and the same feeling flowing in the opposite direction by the
Community toward the departing member. A number of community members that left
the community actually rejoined later.
[87]
F. SOCIAL CONTROL
i. Mutual
Criticism
As a young man at Andover
Seminary, Noyes was part of a select society called the Brethren that performed
a weekly exercise which consisted of frank criticism of each other’s
characters. The member whose turn it was to submit to the criticism held his
place while other members, one by one, told him his faults in the plainest
possible way.
[88] This exercise was a
fundamental aspect of Oneida life carried over by Noyes. Each community member
was exposed to his or her faults several times a year and sometimes as much as
once a month.
[89] The community member was, of
course, to receive the criticism in silence. A criticism of a community member
once took up eighteen pages of notes.
[90] The
process primarily intended to improve the members of the community and therefore
bring them in harmony with God through the spirit of improvement. Criticism
allowed community members to increase their points of harmony, which would make
them more attractive in heaven.
[91] Mutual
Criticism was also used as disciplinary measure and curative for physical
ailments. In fact, Mutual Criticism was the only formal means by which the
community controlled its members.
[92]
Noyes explained that Mutual
Criticism could only be instituted once love for the truth and love for one
another were nurtured in a community.
[93] The
community had to be strengthened in order for a community member to both take
criticism kindly and give criticism without fear of offending. Further, a
criticism cannot be given if individuals are not well acquainted and know each
other faults. The community member was not to allow feelings of malice influence
his criticisms, but instead was to do his or her best of holding up a perfect
mirror of the faults of the person being
criticized.
[94] Love, respect, and sincerity
were all necessary characteristics of a person giving a criticism. The
difference between the right and wrong way of receiving criticism, is the
difference between manliness and childishness. And the great secret of going
through the judgment comfortably is to help judge yourself. One sign that a
criticism was given in good spirit is that the community feel good-natured
toward the person afterwards, and it does not disturb the social flow within the
group. Meekness is required of both those criticizing and receiving criticism,
for the spirit of God can only passed in
humility.
[95] I
The criticisms were completed by
either the entire community or a portion of the community, allowing for many
perfect mirrors to be held up to the target of the criticism. A standing
criticism committee was developed at Oneida to administer the process. The
committee was selected by the Community, and was changed every three months
– giving every one an opportunity to serve as critics as well as
subjects.
[96] The person volunteering him or
herself for criticism would make an application to the committee for a criticism
and was free to have others besides the committee present, or to invite the
whole Community. In general, the majority of cases criticism was solicited by
individuals.
[97] However, in some instances,
where it was noticed that a person was suffering from faults or influences that
might be corrected or removed by criticism, they were advised to submit
themselves. In extreme cases such a disobedience to the Community regulations
the Criticism would be administered without solicitation. Criticisms could also
take place in private.
[98] Different manners of
criticisms were necessary for different Oneida citizens:
In
the case of a person who is not really in a progressive state – who has no
genuine ambition for improvement – with a view to get him in motion, wake
him up, and start him on the track, it may good to say the worst that can be
said, and make his faults ass odious as the truth will bear, so that he will
hate himself if possible. But when a person has a genuine eagerness for
improvement, and what he wants is, not to be put in motion, but to be shown
where to move, criticism properly takes a different form. A person in that
state, wide awake and sincere in general does not need very much to be told what
his deficiencies are: he is likely to know them as an one, and perhaps more so.
Your way to help him is... him the next step in faith that is fore him –
the very thing he that he can do to
improve.
[99]
John
Humphrey Noyes, Mutual Criticism
Mutual Criticism was also one of
the entrance fees into the community.
[100]
The object of the Perfectionist Community was self-improvement which could best
be accomplished through criticism. In order to be a member of the Oneida
Community you had to participate in Mutual Criticism. Noyes believed that
criticism exists in every society and is one of the fundamental ways in which
individuals develop and that Oneida’s Mutual Criticism was the most
efficient and positive form of criticism.
ii. Evening
Meetings
Evening Meetings were used as a
method for keeping the community members in line. The meetings were convened
not only for social and business purposes but to thrash air and resolve
disputes.
[101] The first few years at
Oneida, when the group was small enough, a roll call occurred at each meeting
and the community members were encouraged to voice their complaint when his or
her name was called.
[102] Later, when the
group grew and roll call was not feasible the custom of airing your grievance in
public, rather than in private, remained. The public airing of problems
significantly decreased the backbiting, gossip, and
dissension.
[103]
iii. Father
Noyes
John Humphrey Noyes’ word
was law. Though Noyes was a kind and flexible man, he was the acknowledged
divine authority of the Community.
[104] The
members of the community could not challenge his authority without repudiating
their entire way of life.
[105] In the case
of unresolved arguments Noyes was the final arbiter. When there were lagging
departments or recalcitrant individuals, it was Noyes who administered the
necessary reprimand. And if it became obvious that a member was deliberately
flouting the rules of the Community, his or her expulsion was handed quietly and
firmly by Noyes.
[106]
G. BUSINESS
The
Oneida community completely and totally adhered to economic communism during its
existence.
[107] From the very beginning to
the very end, the group rejected all forms of personal wealth and private
property. Everything was jointly owned, including clothes. For example,
“Going-away clothes for grown folks, as for children, were common
property. Any man or woman preparing for a trip was fitted out with one of the
suits kept in stock for that
purpose.”
[108]
During the first ten years of
the Community suffered many economic woes; it seemed almost everything they
tried failed. The started in agriculture and had experienced farmers, but could
not compete on the open market. After farming failed, the group tried light
manufacturing: furniture, baskets, slippers, and bags. None of these endeavors
made a profit. The Community then turned to peddling silk thread, pins and
needles, and preserved fruits; again, loosing money in the process. The
Community lost one average about $4,000 a
year.
[109] Some of the failures were
attributed to lack of experience and others came about because of simple bad
luck set backs, such as fires. However, the chief reason for the economic
failure on the whole was the community was spread too thin: seven different
branches in four different states.
[110]
Noyes decided to restructure by phasing out all the branches except Oneida and
Willingford. The streamlining of the community into two branches allowed their
community to pool their resources and specialize in a single product.
The business venture that saved
the community from bankruptcy and eventually became a huge success was traps.
In 1948, shortly after the Community’s founding, a man named Sewell
Newhouse was admitted. Newhouse was a legendary hunter and made his own traps
using a blacksmith’s forge, anvil, and hand punch. He made an excellent
product that he had no trouble selling. However, he had no real desire to
establish a business or make money. Initially, no one thought of using the taps
as a basic community product. Additionally, when it occurred to the Community
to use the traps as a product, Newhouse was reluctant to reveal his secret
process of spring tampering. However, Noyes patiently prodded for the
information and eventually Newhouse relented and gave up the
secret.
[111]
By the late 1850s the Oneida
Community was turning out traps by the hundreds.
Demand for the product
grew rapidly and to meet the orders an assembly-line operation was created. By
1860, the Newhouse trap was not only being used domestically and in Canada, but
was used all over the world. The Newhouse trap became the premier trap in the
world; many professional trappers would use no other
brand.
[112]
The Community made the traps in
the trap factory located near the Mansion Home. The business developed into a
typical industrial plant of the period. In 1868 the Community manufactured
278,000 traps.
[113] The Community was unable
to complete the orders themselves and hired outside workers. At its peak, the
Community employed seven hundred people.
[114]
Interestingly, once the Oneida Community was able to make its trap business a
success the other products (preserved fruit, bags, silk thread) proved to be
valuable secondary businesses.
[115]
In 1877, the Community began to
manufacture silverware.
[116] Originally, the
business had a few ups and downs, but in the end proved very successful. When
the community dispersed in 1881, the industrial aspect of the Community was
perpetuated under the name of Oneida Ltd
[117]
and still thrives today (see above). At the time the members disbanded the
Community was worth about $600,000.
H. COMPLEX MARRIAGE
Free
love with us does not mean freedom to love to-day and leave tomorrow.... Our
Communities are families, as distinctly bounded and separated from promiscuous
society as ordinary households. The tie that binds us together is as permanent
and sacred, to say the least, as that of marriage, for it is our religion. We
receive no members (except by deception or mistake), who do not give their heart
and hand to the family interest for life and forever. Community of property
extends just as far as freedom of love.
The
thing we have done for which we are called “Free Lovers,” is simply
this: we have left the simple form of marriage and advanced to the complex stage
of it.” We have no quarrel with those who believe in exclusive dual
marriage and faithfully observe it, but we have concluded that for us there is a
better way. The honor and faithfulness that constitutes ideal marriages, may
exist between two hundred as two; while the guarantees for women and children
are much greater in the Community than they can be in any private family.
Oneida Community Handbook,
1867 and 1871
Perhaps
the single most distinctive feature of the Onieda Community was the practice of
complex marriage; an unprecedented combination of polygamy and polyandry, with
certain religious and social constraints. According to community member, Abel
Easton, the tenant of complex marriage developed by the Onieda Community created
“a home the like of which has not been seen since the world
began.”
[118]
Before the practice of complex
marriage could be implemented, Noyes’ had to demonstrate to his followers
the true meaning of love and the evils of traditional
marriage.
[119] The Oneida Community was
taught that “love” as commonly understood in the world was a form of
idolatrous, debilitating selfishness.
[120]
Noyes insisted that romantic love was like a narcotic: the initial experience of
generosity and fulfillment was false and ultimately the love degrades its user
and jades his appetite for the pleasure of true love. Noyes believed that false
love was the source of most evil and disasters to which men and women were
subjected: it sent people to hospitals, insane wards, and to their death.
Noyes taught that in the matter
of love: we must learn to seek the Divine, to seek God, behind and within every
fellowship.
[121] Fellowship is the surest
opening by which a Christian can enter into union with the Divine; love of
another person should be the means whereby he or she contacts his
Creator.
[122] Anything short of contact with
God is a blind and false love. According to Noyes chastity is when a person is
able to see God in all lovers and drink in God’s spirit with every
relationship. Noyes taught that all new lovers experience awe, respect, and
feeling of sacredness as a result of their relationship – a feeling of
depth and sublimity. However, the average man assumes that these feelings are
caused by the partner, but it not the partner; it is God that is the source.
Eventually, boredom and disappointment develop in a relationship where God is
not acknowledged as the awe and sublimity behind a lover’s experience.
Christ, admitted into love, sweetens and strengthens it.
Jesus told his disciples to love
God with all thy heart. Noyes interpreted the first commandments to not only
love God with one’s whole heart, but to love him alone. God is a jealous
god that claims exclusive rights over the heart and anything less than entire
and exclusive devotion is a prostitution of the
heart.
[123] Any relationship that
demand’s a person’s full attention is sinful. Unbelief, in the
Oneida Community, is not a direct refusal of God, but a positive attraction from
one person to another that causes either to withdraw his or her heart from
God.
[124] A person that falls prey to
romantic love would either have to refrain from all love relationship or be
separated from his or her love temporarily, to prepare the heart to love in a
God-centered way.
An Oneida Community member
realizes there is no need to suffer because a particular lover is not available
because he realizes that an identical joy can be found in whatever lover God
sends his or her way.
[125] A man or woman,
who does not think this way, will expend considerable time and energy comparing
lovers and experiences. And should he or she judge a particular relationship
more satisfactory than another, he or she will be distraught if circumstances
make it impossible for that relationship to develop. The individual will worry,
scheme, and stoop to jealousy and revenge. Also, his or her life will be
characterized by alternating fits of depression and reassurance. A basic tenant
in the Oneida Community was to be able to enjoy everything and yet to be
dependant on nothing but God for happiness.
[126]
At Oneida, no one had the right
to demand love from another; no had the right to act as if he were the owner of
another person. Oneida did not believe that an exclusive pair was the perfect
arrangement for affection. Man is gregarious; he ought to love whomever and
whenever he finds the lovable. The most beautiful kind of love is between two
people who give each other perfect freedom to love any other
person.
[127] Jesus and Mary’s
relationship was used a proof by Noyes that possessive loves was contrary to a
true relationship with God. According to Oneidan theology, Jesus denied the
claims which Mary made on him due to the relationship as mother and son.
Further, Jesus promised that those who give up Father, Mother, Sisters,
Brothers, and Wives for his sake would discover a hundred-fold of Fathers,
Mothers, Sisters, and Wives. Noyes, claimed that this meant that the disciples
of Jesus should not limit his love to those with whom he is bound by legal or
blood ties, but should learn to discover in every man and woman a potential
parent, lover, or child.
[128] An exclusive
relationship was therefore contrary to God’s plan.
At the Oneida community it was
important that citizens seek the companionship of those who would influence them
toward goodness and holiness. It was the duty of every person serious about
salvation to seek someone wiser in the knowledge of God than himself. A basic
principal at Oneida was that a person’ spiritual life developed only to
the extent that he or she associates and mingles with superior
life.
[129] Noyes counseled that a person
choosing a companion should primarily be guided by criteria of inner beauty,
closeness to Christ, and nobility of spirit; he urged members not to be swayed
by external inducements. According to Noyes, It therefore followed that a
sincere lover avoids too much conversation and frivolities because those
activities prevent the interchange of inner
life.
[130]
Noyes believed that sexual
relations were a fine art, intrinsically more pure and aesthetic than singing,
eating, and drinking. To rob the body of its sexual function was worse than
robbing it of its voice, hearing, or sense of taste. Oneida members were taught
to regard the bodily sexuality as sacrament: a means of union with God; a
channel by which his grace and power could be shared; a source of growth and
joy.
[131] There was no doubt in the mind of
John Noyes that during sexual relation every spiritual person is conscious of
being drawn near the Divine source, of bring wrapped in a “nimbus”
of sacredness, purity, and infinite beauty.
Noyes viewed marriage as an
institution which sanctions and intensifies all the evils of false love; it
transforms the heavenly passion of love from a vehicle of God’s grace into
a drudge devoted to the most menial of
service.
[132] First, Noyes claimed that the
average man comes to think of his wife as an object, something owned and to be
used for his pleasure. At its worst, marriage sheltered acts of cruelty and
violence which the law could never sanction outside of wedlock. Noyes equated
marriage from the female perspective to a form of slavery. Secondly, Noyes
maintain, that care for one’s family because the ruling passion of a
person’s life. That the primary concern in a nuclear family is providing
necessities and makes sharing impossible. It creates an unhealthy dependence
partners and unhealthy concentration on children. All of the pressures of
nuclear family life left little time for
God.
[133] Thirdly, marriage chains a couple
together for life, which according to Noyes is unnatural and undesirable.
Fourthly, marriage proves secrete adultery; ties together unsuited natures,
keeps matched nature apart, gives sexual appetite only scanty feedings, and
condemns adolescents, who are ready for sexual intercourse but too young for
marriage, to a period of unhealthy waiting and leads to masturbation and other
perversions. Lastly, marriage is a barrier to instituting a system of
scientific breeding (see Stirpiculture discussed below), and therefore makes
impossible needed steps toward the improvement of the human race. Overall,
marriage sets mankind against one another in competitiveness and exclusive
ownership.
[134]
Noyes’s rejection of
marriage was founded in the Scriptures.
[135]
According to the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus clearly taught that there would be no
marriage in the kingdom of heaven. When the Sadducees attempted to trick Jesus
by asking to which of her many husbands a hapless bride would be married, Jesus
responded that in heaven there would be no giving or taking in marriage. Jesus,
also, commanded that Christians should love one another. Noyes claims that the
marriage goes against the commandment for Christians to love one
another.
[136] Just as
19
th century America had taken up
the long overdue battle against slavery, the Oneida community saw themselves as
Crusaders against marriage. The Community did not suggest that the new course
of loved developed at Oneida was open to everyone. Only those that overcame
selfishness and entered into a state of perfection were fit to attempt the new
path of love. For the majority of the American population, the law of marriage
was still necessary. The law of marriage was instituted by God after the fall
of men from Grace and it should not be aside by anyone until he or she was
living in the state of grace.
Noyes did not implement his
plan for marital reorganization until he set up an adequate value foundation
(see theological principals sited above) and organizational backing so that he
could be relatively confident of
success.
[137] In May of 1946, Noyes broke,
for the first time, from conventional marriage patterns to those that he
considered to belong to the heavenly state. Noyes obtained the consent of his
wife (Harriett), Mary Cragin, and George Cragin to enter into a complex
marriage. Interestingly, Noyes later wrote that Mary Cragin had a “spirit
exceedingly intoxicating – one that will make a man
crazy.”
[138]
Complex Marriage was the name
given to the social system at the Oneida Community; it was an attempt to replace
marriage by a system which was consonant with the highest of Christian ideas
about love. All of the members in the community were to consider themselves
married to one another, joined by a bond that was as solemn and as permanent as
that of any marriage.
Free
love with us does not mean freedom to love today and leave tomorrow.... The tie
that binds us together is as permanent and sacred, to say the least, as that of
marriage, for it is our religion.... We are not free lovers in any sense that
makes love less binding or responsible that it is in marriage.
Circular,
14 May 1866
All members of the community
pledged themselves to love and care for one another. Each member was to love
every other member – there was to be no place for exclusiveness, cliques,
or animosity. Children were to be thought of as the offspring, not of one
couple, but of the whole Community.
[139]
Although, each member was married to every other member, guidelines were
developed to restrain influences of selfishness. The need for guidance in
matters in the heart applied to all members, but especially to the younger and
newer members. The responsibility of enforcing the guidelines fell to the elder
members. One of their most important chores was to root out romantic love and
to wean members from their false attachments and their improper love. In the
Oneida community the young did not have the wisdom to take complete
responsibility for their matters of the
heart.
[140] At Oneida, love was not to be
left to the impulses of the young and immature.
Girls joined the adult community
around the age of puberty, shortly after their first menses. Noyes typically
initiated each virgin into sexual intercourse. The young women (ages 12-25) had
sexual relations exclusively with much older community males who had learned the
art of Male Continence. Additionally, women demonstrated their understanding of
community spirit through sexual relationships with the older male members. Boys
joined the adult community around the age of twelve, as well. From the ages of
twelve to twenty-five the young men were permitted only sexual relationships
with postmenopausal women in order to master Male
Continence.
[141] The sexual relationships
between the youth and the elders were highly practical; protecting against both
births and passions.
Brotherly love was the most
important type of love at Oneida, following a member’s love for God. Any
love or friendship that took away from a person’s love for the general
community was regarded as a weakening influence of the spirit and health of the
whole community.
[142] However, this did not
mean that one could not have a special relationship with another community
member; equality of love among all members was not insisted upon. A special or
intense relationship was laudable as long as the lovers or friends remained open
to the rest of the community. Noyes proudly pointed out that Mr. L and Mrs. L,
a couple in the community, was the most sweetly united and affectionate of the
community, but at the same time they were independent of one another and
perfectly free from exclusiveness and jealousy. No man in the community feared
being an intruder in loving Mrs. L because Mr. L was happy about all of her
experiences. A person that did not have a special relationship with anyone was
to attribute the fault to themselves and their lack of attracting spirituality.
The only recourse open was to work on himself or herself in terms of achieving a
perfect union with Christ which is the only true source of
attractiveness.
[143] Married couples that
entered the community, were not asked to renounce their marriage, they only
agreed to accept the rest of the community into their
lives.
[144] A relationship that excluded
part the community was described as sticky and completely condemned. Friends,
families, or lovers that developed a sticky relationship could be sent to
different branches of the community to correct the prohibited
behavior.
[145]
I. SELECTING A
LOVER
Choosing a lover at Onieda involved two principals: 1) No one would
ever be forced to take a lover and 2) a person selecting a lover must base his
or her selection on spirituality, not outward
appearance.
[146] The first principal meant
that no one would ever be required to sleep with someone they did not find
attractive. However, each community member has a duty to remain open to others
at the same time. A member that failed to give others a chance, who arbitrarily
armored himself against others, would be accused of unfaithfulness to his
obligations to the community.
[147] The
second principal of selecting lovers based on spirituality created
categorizations of pairing defined as horizontal fellowship, ascending
fellowship, or descending fellowship.
[148]
Horizontal fellowship meant that the two partners in the relationship had
achieved approximately the same spiritual development. The community believed
that these types of friendships contributed little towards improvement and, in
fact, tended towards degradation. The relationships comprised of one party
with a more advance faith permitted spiritual inspiration and opportunity for
growth for the less spiritually experienced party (respectively descending and
ascending and fellowship).
[149] There was a
cost to the partner with more spirit because the experience brought the loss of
resources by draining the person of strength. It was important to make sure
that one didn’t drive themselves into spiritual bankruptcy under the
banner of altruism. A person was always to maintain a balance of ascending
fellowship over descending fellowship.
[150]
The ascending/descending fellowships applied to friendships and relationships
outside the community walls. The Oneida community preached that relationship
with outsiders, including family, was not advisable because it would drain the
member of his or her spiritual
strengths.
[151]
Natural tendencies followed from
the requirement that the spiritually wise must sleep with the less experienced:
cross-generational love. The soulful individuals tended to be the elder
community members, while the more immature spirits belonged to the younger
community members. Therefore, the ascending/descending fellowship encouraged
relationships that crossed over generation gaps; encouraging the young men to
mingle and associate with older women as it encouraged young women to mingle and
associate with older men. Activities that could be shared by both the old and
young alike were most favored.
[152] The fist
sexual experience of a young adolescent girl and boy typically involved
significantly older partners:
It
is regarded as better for the young of both sexes to associate in love with
persons older than themselves and if possible with those who are spiritual and
have been some time in the school of self control, and who are thus able to make
love safe and edifying. This is only another form of the popular principal of
contrasts. It is well understood by physiologists that it is undesirable for
persons of similar character and temperaments to mate together. Communists have
discovered that it is no desirable for two inexperienced and unspiritual person
to rush into fellowship with each other; that it is far better for both to
associate with persons of mature character and sound sense.
Circular, 14 January 1867
The elders in the Oneida
community believed if the young were left to their own devices, they would
inevitably and innocently be come wrapped up in the passions of romantic love.
Further, it was reasoned that a young woman and man’s first sexual
experience should be with an experience partner to ensure that sexual encounter
was in its most noble form. Sex with an experienced partner was educating and
in theory spared much pain and suffering for
novices.
[153]
A man at the Oneida Community
was to propose a sexual liaison to a woman through a third party. The third
party transmitting the request was generally a woman. Noyes, claimed that the
third party go between allowed a woman to refuse a request with less
embarrassment and pressure.
[154] However,
although pressure and embarrassment might have been decreased; the true
motivation behind the third party requirement was to bring the intimacies of the
community members out to the open for inspection and control. A third party
could bring to the attention of Noyes and his central committee any proposed
lovers that was not found suitable.
[155]
Although, the Oneida community
created a third person request process to bring the pairing of members out to
the open, generally the community believed sex to be a private matter. The
subject of sex was in fact taboo at the
Community.
[156] Public displays of
affections, vulgarity of any kind, sexual discussions or innuendoes, and
immodest behavior were all forbidden.
[157]
Only one man in the history of the Community went against these stated rules.
William Mills discussed sexual matters openly and asked others about their
amours. The female community members would have nothing to do with the vulgar
man. Soon, Mills was asked to leave, but he refused. This was the first and
only time that a member refused a request to leave. After several discussions,
the central community members decided to remove him by
force.
[158] According to Robert Park:
“Mills found himself, one winter night, suddenly, and unceremoniously, and
horizontally propelled through an open window, and shot-harmlessly but
ignominiously- into the depths of a snowdrift. It was the first and only
forcible expulsion in the history of the
community.”
[159]
The original procedure regarding
a sexual liaison was for the man to go to the woman’s room and remain all
night.
[160] Evidently, the women complained
that the practice was too tiring and Noyes saw to it that the men would stay for
an hour or two and then return to their own
room.
[161] The short rendezvous remained the
procedure for for the rest of the Community’s existence.
J.
WOMEN
According to Noyes, at the time of the Oneida Community, a woman had
no more freedom than a slave. A woman was a prisoner of marriage and expected
to submit to the sexual demands of her husband. She was condemned to a life of
drudgery without opportunity.
[162] A truly
profound observation by Noyes was that the health of women was often destroyed
by repeated child-birthing. At Oneida, women were to be free: free from
possessive men, free from compulsory sex, free from forced
child-bearing.
[163] At the Oneida Community,
women were to be respected as co-workers of men; men and women were to work side
by side. Men at the Oneida Community challenged gender roles by washing dishes,
cooking, rearing children, knitting, and sewing. Community policy urged women
to keep indoor work to a minimum and to join the men in at the workbench or in
the yard. Women were not only expected to be present along side the men at
work, but also to be present at all social
gatherings.
[164] It was understood that
every activity was more fun and beneficial with both sexes involved. Lastly,
the community also advocated that women belonged at the side of men in terms of
intellectual studies. Noyes believed women had more of an aptitude for
education than men and once given the opportunity to learn would surpass the
male in terms of learning.
[165] In the
Oneida community a woman’s primary responsibility was no longer her
husband or her child, but God. As well, man’s primary responsibility was
to God.
[166] In effect, both men and women
shared a common personal and religious commitment that radically undercut social
restrictions.
The work at Oneida can be
classified into five categories. First, traditional women’s work
including kitchen duties, housekeeping, laundry, sewing and mending, nursing,
early childhood care, and teaching. In these areas of work women dominated as
both workers and supervisors. Within in the light manufacturing and community
support activities, such as: fruit canning and packing, silk-spooling, traveling
bag manufacture, print shop, bookkeeping, and phonography, the women
predominated as workers and were supervised by both men and women. Industry,
the third classification, consisted of the animal-trap business and machine
shop, and various departments of specialization including dairy work, dentistry,
transportation, and gardening. In these economic activities, men predominated
as both workers and supervisors, but a few women worked these areas too. Heavy
farm work, carpentry, saw milling, lumbering, sales work and peddling were
performed by men or the community or hired labors, only. The fact that women
did not farm, except during crisis periods, was not a sexual slight. The men
didn’t want to do farm work and eventually the Community hired enough
outside workers to all the onerous labor. The last categorization of work,
ideological administration was controlled by John H. Noyes. It appears that the
women at the Oneida community gravitated toward traditional female occupations,
but no occupation was formally closed
off.
[167]
However, it can be argued that
women at Oneida were never really intended to be considered the equals of men.
As cited above women were not permitted to partake in the decision making of the
community. Further, girls were forced to end their formal educations by twelve
years of age, while formal education programs existed for boys between the ages
of fourteen to twenty-six years old.
[168] In
reality, Oneida women lived under a male dominated rule while spending a
majority of their day completing house hold duties; much like any typical woman
in America.
Although the community
supposedly advocated equality for women at work, play, and schooling, Noyes made
it clear that men would always be superior to women fundamentally; he constantly
discussed his expectation that women play a supportive role toward
men.
[169] Although, women deserved freedom,
dignity, and responsibility; men were the inspirers of women and would always
remain so. The ideal woman at Oneida, Charlotte Noyes Miller (Noyes’s
sister) was described as a true woman because “there was not a suspicion
of strong mindedness” about her. Ms. Miller “gave man his true
place as head of woman, and felt no suppression or infringement from his
superiority.”
[170] The Oneida
community refused to support the woman’s movement that gained popularity
in America during the mid-nineteenth century. The community claimed to oppose
the movement because it pitted men against women, which was contrary to the
brotherly loved required between all members as the setting of the sexes against
one another is contrary to a heavenly
existence.
[171]
Interestingly, women in the
Oneida community wore bloomer-type outfits and cut their hair
short.
[172] A theory behind the clothing
style was that it was instituted to outwardly demonstrate the equality of men
and women. This bloomer-type clothing allowed women to work at any type of work
offered at the community, including work typically considered
male.
[173] However, it can also be argued
that the dress code was institute to “crucify the dress
spirit.”
[174]
K. MALE CONTINENCE (COITUS
RESEVATUS) & STIRPTICULTURE
Arguably, Male Continence (a method of
birth control) is the single necessary development that allowed the Oneida
community to exist and survive for over thirty years. Due to the institution of
Complex Marriage in the community the children born in the community would be
unsure of their paternity without a reliable birth control method. Noyes
claimed to have developed Male Continence: the practice of sexual intercourse
where the man does not ejaculate and the woman avoids
pregnancy.
[175]
According to Noyes the purpose
of an orgasm was to impregnate a woman and the act of love was for the mutual
joy of the two parties.
[176] Noyes advocated
that the two types of sex could be separated and controlled through Male
Continence. Noyes, experimented with the technique in 1844, and in 1848
published a paper on it. Noyes argued that the practice of Male Continence
vastly increased the pleasure and benefit of sex to both males and
females.
[177] The male’s ability to
control his ejaculations allowed for the community to protect against unwanted
children and to determine paternity of the children. It is arguable, that the
community would not have lasted for thirty years, if unwanted pregnancies were
not avoidable or if paternity could not be identified.
Stirpticulture was reproduction
based on the theory that spiritual traits could be coupled and passed onto
children through reproduction. Noyes believed that his spiritual
“genes” were the strongest and therefore it was important that
traits were passed onto the next generation.
[178] Further, Noyes intended for
stirpticulture experiment to strength and revitalize the community; it was a
protection against complacency and
stagnation.
[179] In the end, the
stiprticulture epoch tore the community apart more than holding it together.
Community members during Stirpticulture were allowed to have children, subject
to the approval of a stirpticulture committee; Noyes initially headed the
committee. Most participants selected their own mates and applied as couples,
only about twenty-five percent of the stirpticulture unions were suggested by
the committee. Forty-eight children were born during the scripture period at
Oneida, nine of which were sired by Noyes
himself.
[180] As the children grew up, no
noticeable spiritual superiority was
detected.
[181] .
L. CHILDREN &
THEIR EDUCATION
193 children spent all or some significant portion of
their childhood at the Oneida Community.
[182]
Children born in the Oneida community only stayed with there mothers until they
could walk. Children in the community were not brought up by their parents, but
by a “department” called the Children’s
House.
[183] The men and women chosen to run
the Children’s House were picked specifically for their ability to mold
the children to community behavior and ideology. The Children’s house was
a combination of nursery and school divided into three departments: a nursery in
which the children stayed till they were four; a kindergarten, and the larger
"South Room."
[184] Mothers were taught to
fight philoprogenitiveness and informed that it was against the communal rules
to have a special relationship with their children. According to Mary E. Cragin,
Noyes’s favored lover, the excessive love of children prevented women from
loving God wholeheartedly.
[185] Both women
and their children suffered for lack of a relationship and ironically both
suffered when a relationship was built. If “stickiness” developed
between a mother and her child they were often punished by not being allowed to
have contact for weeks at a time. A special mother and child relationship that
continued to grow after repeated castigations were split and forced to live at
seperate branches of the Oneida community. Female children appeared to suffer
more than male children by the forced distance between themselves and their
mothers.
[186] The only special privileges
permitted between a mother and a child were short visits (once or twice a week)
and a mother’s obligation to care for her sick
child.
[187] No reference to paternal
philoprogenitivenss can be found in the Community literature. In general, each
adult male and female member of the Community was to be a mother and father to
all the children (see above).
In these formative years, the
children were indoctrinated with the idea that Community surrounding them was a
family.
[188] Due to the lack of a nuclear
family, the children developed a sense of solidarity in their own immediate
generation; like a class within a
school.
[189] Female and male children
attended school together until the age of twelve. The children were graded
according to age: toddlers, preschoolers, and primary school. The primary
school children (ages six to twelve) attended school in the morning; the
children studied reading, writing, arithmetic, geography, science, obedience,
manners, and prayer. The afternoon was set aside for work, outdoor play, and
regular children’s religious meetings. The work performed in the
afternoon by the children was considered an integral part of their education.
The children pared and sorted apples, stored weights, and made chains to attach
to steel traps. At the religious meetings the children learned about God and
how he was always watching over them. The children, also, received criticisms
from their elders on their behavior and attitudes. Occasionally, the children
administered criticisms to each other.
[190]
At Oneida, childhood appeared to have been highly structured but not oppressive.
The children were not pampered or romanticized; however, they were cherished.
The children were the future of the
Community.
[191]
IV. Conclusion
.
“The community was never in our minds, an experiment, we believed we were
living under a system which the whole world would sooner or later
adopt.”
Alice
Ackley, Oneida Community Member
Both the children and the original members failed to realize the
continued success of the Oneida Community. However, the community did not fail
in blazing a new way of life that spanned almost half a decade and will most
likely never be forgot.
V. Personal Thoughts
The Oneida community seemed most
similar to the Cheyenne Community of the Studies regarding Legal Systems Very
Different Than Our Own. The most striking comparison is the impression that
both communities are understood to have excess resources. The Oneida communal
system would not have lasted for such a significant period of time had assets of
the community not covered more than the basic needs of the members. The
Cheyenne Indians demonstrated their overstock of commodities by punishing
individuals by destroying their property and then replacing the destroyed
property with their own articles. If horses, tents, and bows were scare on the
plains the social pattern of destroy property would not have developed. The
Cheyenne Indians would have been more likely to confiscate the property than
destroy it if a scarcity was an issue.
Further, Cheyenne literature
indicates the sexual practice of the community was not conservative. A single
and life long marriage was not insisted upon for the duration of life. Men were
permitted multiple wives and divorce was also an option. Male Cheyenne Indians
often took the first wife’s sister as a second wife. Further, a story in
The Cheyenne
Way[192]
indicates that common knowledge that wife become pregnant by a man other than
her husband would not necessarily mean the end of the marital relationship or
that the husband won’t help bring up the child. The picture presented
describes Cheyenne marriage as flexible. By no means are the marriage cultures
of the two communities identical, but they do have similarities.
Lastly, both the Cheyenne
community and the Oneida community were spiritual. A version of the Christian
God was at the foundation of the Oneida community. And supernatural powers
influenced the lives of the Cheyenne.
In the end, regardless of
the community origins of a person, people all over the world a fundamentally
similar. Typically people want to be happy, safe, loved, and better than person
standing next to them. :
[1]
Robertson, Constance Noyes,
Oneida Community: An
Autobiography, 1851- 1876,
pg.2, Syracuse University Press,
(1970).[2]
Noyes, Pierrepont,
My Father’s
House: An Oneida Boyhood, pg. 4, (Peter
Smith, 1988), (1937).
[3]
Robertson,
supra, at
2.
[4]
Noyes,
supra, at
4.
[5]
Roberston,
supra, at
3
[6]
Id. at 4
[7]
Id. at 4 –
5
[8]
Id at 5.
[10]
Robertson,
supra at
5.
[11]
Id. at 5.
[13]
McClymond, Michael J.,
John Humphrey Noyes,
the Oneida Community and Male
Continence, Religions in the United States in
Practice, Vol. 1, pg. 219, (ed. Mc
Dannell, Colleen), Princeton
University Press, (2001).
[15]
Id. at
220.
[16]
Roberton,
supra, at 10.
[18]
McClymond,
supra, at
220.
[19]
Id at 223.
[20]
Kinsley, Jessie Catherine,
A Lasting
Spring, (ed. Rich, Jane Kinsley), pg. 44,
Syracuse University Press, (1983).
[21]
Kinsley,
supra,
at 44.
[22]
Foster, Lawrence,
Women, Family, and Utopia:
Communal Experiments of the Shakers, the Oneida
Community, and the
Mormons, pg. 115, Syracuse University Press,
(1991).
[23]
Id, at 115
[24]
Foster, Lawrence, Religion and Sexuality: Three American Communal Experiments of
the Nineteenth
Century, pg. 120, Oxford University press, (1981).
[25]
Foster,
Women, Family, and Utopia,
supra, at
117
[26]
Id., at 117.
[27]
Robertson,
supra at 25.
[29]
Kinsley,
supra at 72.
[32]
Kinsley,
supra, at
59.
[33]
Foster,
Religion and
Sexuality,
supra, at
117.
[34]
Id. at
117.
[35]
Id. at
117
[36]
Kephart, William M., Extraordinary Groups: The Sociology of Unconventional
Life-Styles, pg. 59, St.
Martin’s Press,
(1976).
[37]
Id. at
60.
[38]
Id. at
57.
[39]
Kephart,
supra, at 77.
[40]
Kephart,
Extraordinary Groups, supra,
at 68.
[41]
Id. at 58-59.
[42]
Id. at 59.
[44]
Kinsley,
supra. at 82.
[45]
Id. at
83.
[46]
McClymond,
supra, at 220.
[47]
Foster, Religion and Sexuality, supra, at 84.
[48]
Id. 84-85.
[49]
Id. at 85.
[50]
Id. at 85.
[51]
Id. at 85.
[52]
DeMaria, Richard, Communal Love at Oneida: A Perfectionist Vision of
Authority, Property, and
Sexual Order, The Edwin Mellen Press,
pg. 52
(1978).
[53]
Id. at
57
[54]
Id. at 59
[55]
Id. at
60
[56]
Id. at
60-61
[57]
Id. at
62.
[58]
Id. at
62.
[59]
Id. at 63-64.
[60]
Id. at
64.
[61]
Id. at 65.
[62]
Klee-Hartzell,
Family Love, True Womanliness,
Motherhood, and the Socialization of Girls in the
Oneida Communiyt,
found in
Women in Spiritual and Communitarian
Societies in the United
States 1848-1880, pg. 182, Syracuse University Press, pg. 182,
(1993).
[63]
Id. at 182.
[64]
Foster,
Women, Family, and Utopia,
supra, at 115.
[65]
Klee-Harzell,
supra, at 182.
[66]
Id. at 182.
[67]
Id. at 183.
[68]
Id. at 183.
[69]
Id. at 183.
[70]
Id. at 183.
[71]
Kephart,
supra, at 69.
[72]
Id. at 61.
[73]
Id. at 61.
[74]
Id. at
61-62.
[75]
Id. at 62.
[76]
Id. at
66.
[77]
Id. at 66.
[78]
Id. at 66.
[79]
Id. at
66.
[80]
Kephart,
supra, at 66.
[81]
Id. at
66.
[82]
Id. at
67.
[83]
Id. at 67.
[84]
Id. at
67.
[85]
Id. at
67.
[86]
Id. at 67-68.
[87]
Id.a t 68.
[88]
Robertson,
supra, at 4.
[89]
Kinsley,
supra, at
29.
[90]
Id. at
30.
[91]
Noyes, John Humphrey,
Mutual Criticism,
Syracuse University Press, pg. 15, (1975).
[92]
Kephart, supra, at 71.
[93]
Noyes,
Mutual
Criticism,
supra,. at 14.
[94]
Id. at
14.
[95]
Id. at 29-30.
[96]
Id. at 18.
[97]
Id. at
18
[98]
Id. at 18.
[100]
Kephart
, supra, at 69.
[101]
Id. at
69.
[102]
Id. at 69.
[103]
Id. at 69.
[104]
Id. at
69.
[105]
Id., at 69.
[106]
Id. at 69.
[107]
Id. at 72.
[108]
Id. at 71 -72.
[109]
Id. at
72.
[110]
Id. at 73.
[113]
Id. at 74.
[114]
Id. at 74.
[115]
Id. at 75.
[116]
Id. at 75.
[117]
Id. at 75.
[118]
Foster, Lawrence,
Religion and
Sexuality: Three American Communal Experiments of
the
Nineteenth Century, pg 74, Oxford University Press, (1981).
[119]
DeMaria,
supra, at 106.
[120]
Id. at 108.
[121]
Id. at 52.
[122]
Id. at 55.
[123]
Id. at
130
[124]
Id. at 130
[125]
Id. at
131
[126]
Id. at 131
[127]
Id. at
132
[128]
Id. at 133
[129]
Id. at 140.
[130]
Id. at 140
[132]
Id. at
60-61
[133]
Foster,
Religion and Sexuality,
supra at 92.
[134]
DeMaria,
supra, at
[135]
Id. at
111.
[136]
Id. at 111.
[137]
Foster,
Religion and Sexuality,
supra, at 88.
[138]
McClymond,
supra, at 220
[139]
Id. at 130.
[140]
Id. at 175.
[141]
Klee-Hartzell,
supra, at 197.
[142]
DeMaria,
supra, at
180.
[143]
Id. at 181 –
182.
[144]
Id. at 157.
[145]
Kinsley,
supra, at 15.
[146]
DeMaria,
supra, at
141.
[147]
Id. at
141.
[148]
Id. at
145.
[149]
Id. at 147-
148.
[150]
Id. at
149.
[151]
Id. at 150.
[154]
Kephart,
supra, at
81
[155]
Id. at 82.
[156]
Id. at 82.
[157]
Id. at
82.
[158]
Id. at
82.
[159]
Id. at 82.
[160]
Id. at
82.
[161]
Id. at 82-83.
[162]
DeMaria,
supra, at
70.
[163]
Kephart,
supra, at
63-64..
[164]
DeMaria,
supra, at
67.
[165]
Id. at
95-96.
[166]
Foster,
Women, Family, & Utopia,
supra, at 96.
[167]
Foster,
Religion and Sexuality,
supra. At 104.
[168]
Klee-Hatzell,
supra, at 191.
[169]
Id. at 84.
[170]
Id. at
184.
[171]
DeMaria,
supra, at 163.
[172]
Kephart,
supra, at
64.
[173]
Foster
, Women, Family, & Utopoa, supra, at
91[174]
Foster,
Women, Family, & Utopia,
supra, at 92.
[175]
McClymond,
supra, at 221.
[176]
DeMaria,
supra, at
96.
[177]
Id. at 97
[178]
Id. at 192.
[179]
Id. at 119.
[180]
McClymond,
supra, at
223.
[181]
Noyes,
Boyhood, supra, at 23.
[182]
Klee-Hartzell,
supra, at
190.
[183]
Noyes, Boyhood,
supra, at
41.
[184]
Kephart,
supra, at 92.
[185]
Klee-Hartzell,
supra, at
185.
[186]
Klee-Hartzell,
supra, at
188.
[187]
Id. at 187-190.
[188]
Kephart,
supra, at 91-92.
[189]
Id. at 92.
[190]
Klee-Hartzell
, supra. at 191.
[191]
Id. at 199.
[192]
Llewellyn, K.N. and Hoebel, E.A., The Cheyenne Way: Conflict and Case Law in
Primitive
Jurisprudence, University of Oklahoma Press,
(2002).