From: [name deleted by request]
Subject: Kerista article - from Triples list
To: cos@berry.cs.brandeis.edu
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 94 20:11:50 EDT

Forwarded message:
This is an article posted on the Triples list a few months ago.  Kerista is 
also mentioned in Loving More, and in Love Without Limits - in one of these 
books, written while Kerista was still operating, it said something like "All
male members are required to have vasectomies..." which struck me as weird.

> Reply-To: jeffy3@aol.com
> 
> Posted by permission.  Originally published in Communities  Journal  No.
> 80/81 - Spring/Summer 1993. $7.50/issue, $18/four, 1118 Round Butte Drive,
> Fort Collins, Co. 80524, (303) 490-1550. 
> 
> "What Happened to Kerista?"
> 
> by Eve Furchgott
> 
> The Kerista Commune of San Francisco, like many other "utopian" experiments
> before it, had a life cycle with a beginning, middle, and an end. Some of the
> things we did while it lasted were bold, fun and exciting, breaking new
> ground. Some were arrogant, crazy, and, from today's vantage point, downright
> embarrassing. Certainly whichever way you look at it, there are valuable
> lessons to be learned for anyone with a serious interest in cooperative
> endeavors, group living, and human relationships in general.
> 
> Personal Responsibility
> 
> Of all the complex issues I have attempted to sort out in the past year since
> the commune split up, none stands out so prominently as that of people taking
> personal responsibility for their lives . . . and the consequences of not
> doing so. Those who heard about Kerista while it existed most likely heard
> about its many standards. We had a social contract with hundreds of points of
> agreement in it (some written, others not). We felt that a group could not
> hold together without a very unified outlook and approach to life. The idea
> was that no one would join who did not feel internally "aligned" with all
> these points, so that no one was forced to do or not do anything she/he
> didn't believe in. And in fact, the group never grew very big (the population
> hovered at about 25 people during most of its history), in large measure
> because of that heavy-duty standards "screen."
> 
> In addition to this overarching, institutionalized, collective attitude, many
> other things were handled at a collective level. We practiced economic
> communism, where no one accumulated personal wealth above a small, limited
> amount regardless of the work load they carried, and a communal fund covered
> all living expenses. All living space was considered community space; no one
> officially had her or his own room. Decisions were made democratically
> (though the politics of influence in Kerista above and beyond
> one-person-one-vote could make up a whole mini-series), and often the group
> made decisions about what an individual would or would not be doing with
> regards to things like vocation, how to handle a relationship problem,
> childcare decisions, educational pursuits, and other personal matters. "The
> wisdom of the group mind" was given great reverence in virtually all arenas.
> 
> There were definite benefits to much of this. For starters, once you were in
> Kerista, you had a real sense of belonging to a tribe. You always had a group
> o˙f friends to move around with. You didn't have to worry about paying your
> bills-the community took care of that. Those of us who were parents did not
> have to bear the stress and strain of raising kids alone. You always had help
> figuring out a difficult problem. And, somewhat more abstract, yet still
> significant, you always had a sense or belief that you were doing something
> good for the world. We had a whole rap about how we were building a huge
> communal movement that would save money via cooperative living, use the
> surplus for philanthropy, and thus eventually save the world. So it didn't
> really matter wh
> at you did day to day-simply by being involved in the community, you were a
> part of that plan.
> 
> The down side of all this was that the collectivization of life in general
> gradually eroded people's personal motivation to do anything creative,
> unusual, risky, beautiful. In the early days it was not tha
> t way so much-many people did explore different kinds of artistic, musical
> and recreational activities, and there was a spirit of fun and excitement to
> the scene. But, over time, this faded. Though other things no doubt affected
> people's morale as well, I believe that our communistic approach to life
> effectively immobilized people. It was an interesting coincidence that, at
> about the same time that some of us in Kerista were becoming aware of, and
> uncomfortable about, this problem, the Soviet empire was crumbling and the
> world was getting a very clear understanding of the incompatibility of
> communism and p
> ersonal motivation-and the social gains that derive from individual
> creativity.
> 
> The manifestation of this in Kerista was equally clear. Our living spaces
> were disgustingly messy and unaesthetic, l
> argely because no one felt any personal responsibility for them. It was
> everyone's-and there
> fore, no one's-problem. People felt free to spend money on all kinds of
> things in a way that they would never do if they were solely responsible for
> balancing their checkbooks and making ends meet. (And, as it turns out, when
> the accounting was done after the commune's demise, we found that our
> communal fund had been running in the red for years.)
> 
> Every ex-Keristan I have talked with remembers numerous instances of going
> along with the prevailing group sentiment on an issue rather than take a
> contrary stand, or, worse still, without even bothering to really think the
> issue through independently. Often the matters were relatively
> inconsequential, but there were also many which were not that had major
> effects on the lives and minds of other people. There are memories of this
> sort about which many of us will probably continue to cringe for years to
> come . . . times we gave some innocent person a hard time for thinking, sa
> ying, or doing something that didn't synch with current Keristan doctrine ...
> or times we sat by and watched while some of the "heavies" in our tribe
> verbally abused someone else in the name of honesty, growth, the pursuit of
> "righteousness" or some other such rationalization.
> 
> There were other factors that complicated the situation and made it what it
> was. Jud, the charismatic man who had started Kerista as a hip "scene" years
> before the commune ever formed, was intensely focused on his visions and
> ideas of what life should be like. Though we had never considered ourselves
> to be guru-centered (after all, we believed in democracy, equality of the
> sexes, and other "politically correct" positions), from our perspective
> today, Kerista was in many respects a cult with a charismatic leader. Jud's
> forceful personal style of conversation and confrontation became the model
> for how Keristans related to each other and outsiders; only the most
> courageous Keristans dared to openly disagree with Jud. His personal visions
> originally encompassed many positive, basic hippie ideals that matched the
> ideals most of us held when we first encountered them/him as young
> alternative lifestyle seekers. But it seemed to many of us that, as tim
> e went on, Jud's schemes grew more unrealistic and more grandiose-and his
> personality became increasingly aggressive and difficult to deal with. [Ed.
> note: see page 34 f or Jud's perspective.]
> 
> Over time, our lives became increasingly caught up in developing our business
> (a computer company). The business experience brought many of us out of the
> more sheltered, cloistered previous commune period, and into more contact
> with the outside world. We found, among other things, that there were many
> more nice, "cool" people out there than we had let ourselves believe in our
> cultish, we're-better-than-everyone else mindset; also, that we actually did
> have the skills and abilities to succeed in the world as individuals. This
> increased people's confidence and broadened our perspective, factors which
> ultimately contributed to the commune's dissolution.
> 
>    Polyfidelity
> 
> Kerista was probably best known for its pioneering efforts in the area of
> multiple adult family relationships, for which we came up with the term
> ''polyfidelity.'' At the time of the breakup, just about all of the
> approximately 25 people were in one or another of three polyfidelitous
> families, ranging in size from three to fourteen people. Today, only nine
> people˙ are still in polyfidelitous groups-one family of six (the remains of 
the
> 14-person group, of which I am a member), and another of three (though not
> the threesome that had existed in the commune). A few other individuals are
> still involved sexually with each other, either in monogamous or in open
> relationships.
> 
> Why the big drop-off of relationships between people who were supposedly in
> love up until that point? To me the answer has to do, again, with the matter
> of personal responsibility.  Many different pressures exerted themselves on
> people with respect to relationships in Kerista. For starters, you had to be
> into polyfidelity as a lifestyle preference. Though occasionally we made
> exceptions, if you didn't agree with that you had to
> leave the community, just as you had to leave if you differed on many other
> things. So once that enforced structure was removed, many of the people began
> opening up to other sides of themselves, and began to explore other types of
> relationships.
> 
> It gets worse. We used to scoff at people who would show up at one of our rap
> groups and ask, "But what if you end up in a group with someon
> e you aren't attracted to?" We would tell them they obviously didn't
> understand-you only joined a group if you wanted to be with all the people in
> it, and they all, wanted to be with you. That was the ideal, which made sense
> 
> In reality it was often not that way. Many of us did find ourselves at
> different times in bed with people that, on our own, there was no way on
> earth we'd have ended up with. The way it sometimes worked was that a few
> influential members of a group would be interested in a new person, and they
> would "gestalt" (read, harangue) others who didn't share that feeling until
> they assented to accept the new person. Sometimes a newcomer would feel
> attracted to some members of a group and not oth
> ers, but would decide to join anyway-on the grounds that we were all nice
> people and all relationships are unique, so it was OK if closeness developed
> quickly with some members and more slowly with others.
> 
> That in and of itself was not so bad . . . it's true that relationships can
> and do evolve. But what was really bad about it was that there could be
> situations that went on for years where one or both people in a given dyad
> (an intimate pair within the family) would know, in their hearts and minds,
> that they weren't really in love. Yet because of all the other things and
> relationships going on, they could both sort of pretend that all was well. In
> a couple or small group it's not so easy to put such a problem out of mind,
> but in a larger group, more things can slip through the cracks.
> 
> Within a family, the consequences of singling out one person with whom you
> felt you had a problem were usually severe: more often than not, you'd wind
> being pressured to leave the group you were in, and end up separated from the
> ones you loved as well as the one or ones you did not.
> 
> Another peculiar aspect of polyfidelity in Kerista was the numbers game. We
> had (mainly on the force of Jud's conviction) decided that we wanted our
> families to eventually reach 36 people each: 18 men and 18 women. The upshot
> of it was constant "cruising"
> -unceasing efforts to look for and recruit interesting and attractive people.
> Even though, at least in some cases, we had a number of good relationships
> going, we could not rest on that and be satisfied with nurturing those
> relationships. We were always looking for that next person. It became a kind
> of obsession and game, and, in its own way, a distraction from our other
> problems. In the end, it became exhausting.
> 
> The situation was complex. I do not believe that the only way to have shown
> good character and taken responsibility for our relationships would have been
> to clearly acknowledge where our true affinities lay, and separate from the
> group if we could not have worked out a solution to be with those people
> only. For one thing, it was not always that clear; sometimes it took courage
> to hold on and try to work things out, trying to hang onto relationships that
> were dear in spite of the other difficulties.
> 
> What happened with those of us who are still together was that somehow,
> despite all the flak, we managed to connect with each other and form the
> beginnings of real love relationships. All of us in Mariah (my six-person
> family) played a leading role in initiating the sequence of events that led
> to the commune's disbanding, and I believe that one reason it happened that
> way is that we finally reached a level of trust and closeness among ourselves
> that gave us enough motivation and confidence to take the stand we finally
> took.
> 
> The way I see polyfidelity today is much more in terms of ordinary
> relationship issues than as some sort of major breakthrough unique to our
> idealistic lifestyle. Even though it is rare, I know that what makes it work
> are the same things that make other relationships work: commitment,
> communication, compatibility trust, love, and so on. We do not so much define
> ourselves as polyfidelitous in any ideolog
> ical sense-this is just the way we feel like relating to each other.
> 
> To be in a group has its own inherent drawbacks and advantages, as any
> lifestyle does. To choose it is to let go of other possibilities, but so far
> as I have been able to tell, that's just the way life is. To imagine living
> with a 
> group of 36 people now boggles my mind. We are three men and three women in
> Mariah-but that's about the extent of it. We're very satisfied with this
> arrangement, and have no ambitions to recruit additional members. In Kerista
> there was some trade-off between quantity and quality. I'm done with that.
> 
> It is an amusing irony that the heavy-duty recruiting energy generated by the
> commune does seem to have been the most successful technique we've seen for
> gathering together polyfidelitous people ... yet it is precisely those
> techniques that totally burned us out and which we don't believe in anymore.
> Oh well. I'm relieved that we no longer face the dilemma of how to find
> partners for a multiple adult family without relying on a "glamorous" vision
> and a zealous recruiting team.
> 
> Lessons Learned
> 
> What kicked off the breakup of the Kerista Commune was really pretty
> straightforward. Bottom line, some of us decided it wa
> s time to make Jud answerable to the same standards everyone else was
> expected to live by-
> and play as an equal. Given that demand, he decided to leave ... first his
> polyfidelitous family, then the commune as a whole. That was in November of
> 1991. By the end of that year (following a lot of personal soul-searching,
> group debate, and dialog), the economic, social, and ideological union that
> had formed the Kerista Commune was dissolved.
> 
> Obviously, for the whole thing to unravel because one person left means that
> there was a lot more lurking beneath the surface. One way to see it is that,
> basically, most of us had just grown up and were ready for a different set of
> challenges in life. I also think that a community of people cannot be united
> by social contract or ideological agreement alone. While common beliefs and
> values do play a part, there are many other less tangible things that make
> people like each other and want to do things together.
> 
> In the wake of the commune split-up, many of the folks involved have realized
> that, in reality, they do not have that much in common with some of the
> others who were their 
> previous community partners. In the end, the mix of forces that held the
> thing together-the feminist, egalitarian rhetoric; economic
> security/expediency; aversion to being alone; the presence of some pretty
> cool, intelligent, attractive people; the sense of camaraderie; Jud's
> charismatic personality;
>  some shared ideals and beliefs and whatever else-weren't sufficient to make
> up for that absence of more fundamental social affinity.
> 
> I should also say that the experience was no doubt different for the various
> individuals involved. My impression is that some may have been happier, at
> least on some levels, if the commune had not broken up ... but lacked the
> conviction or leadership skill necessary to try to hold the community
> together or to build something new. This was another whole issue in Kerista
> (as in all organized groups) that is worthy of exploration: how to deal with
> the concentration of leadership energy within a small percentage of the
> membership. No dictates requiring equal participation seem to have any
> enduring impact on this apparently human fact. In any event, for better or
> worse, all of us who were once Keristans must now face the world more
> directly and make it or break it on our own steam. It's scary and liberating
> at the same time.
> 
> "The business experience brought many of us out of the more sheltered,
> cloistered previous commune period, and into more contact with the outside
> world. We found, among other things, that there were many more nice, "cool
> people out there than we had let ourselves belie
> ve in our cultish, we 're-better-than- everyone-else mindset."
> 
> A final thought: I think we used up our enthusiasm for the belief that any
> one group or plan was going to "save the world." The world is pretty screwed
> up, but things are far too complex for a single, simplistic solution.
> Improvements will happen as good people with their own visions dedicate
> themselves in whole or part to doing creative things that are good for the
> planet and for people. The more who do that, the better.
> 
> Cooperative activities and a sense of community still have a valuable part to
> play, but I now have a deep suspicion of any person or group who tries to
> direct or control these things. Change of consciousness leading to change in
> behavior and lifestyle is still important, as is making intelligent use of
> available philanthropic funds, and as is changing legislation at the
> governmental level. Beyond that, it's up to the higher forces to deal with as
> they see fit. If they exist, and if they care.
> 
> So that's the gist of the story as I see it. Though others, no doubt, have
> different perspectives, I think much of what I have said here are experiences
> that most of the others involved would identify with. There's much more that
> could be said, and it makes a rather fascinating study in human psychology.
> Maybe someday I'll write a book about it. I hope it will be a best-seller,
> because now that the commune doesn't pay my bills, I could use the cash. 
> -
> 
> c 1993 Fellowship for Intentional Community.