The only real wealth is cultural wealth
'Bolo'Bolo' is a visionary booklet (published by Paranoia City Verlag, Zurich) The main questions it addresses are as follows:
- 'How would I really like to live?'
- 'In what kind of society (or non-society) would I feel most comfortable?'
- 'What do I really want to do with myself?'
- 'Regardless of their practicality, what are my true wishes and desires?'
- 'And let's try to picture all this not in a remote future (reformists always like to talk about the 'next generation') but in our own lifetimes, while we're still in pretty good shape, let's say within the next five years...'
'How would I really like to live?' 'In what kind of society (or non-society) would I feel most comfortable?' 'What do I really want to do with myself?' 'Regardless of their practicality, what are my true wishes and desires?'
The book's author, styled only as 'p.m.', discusses the constituent elements of his human-scale utopia. The stress is on cultural diversity and on a network of autonomous neighbourhoods, which work together in regional assemblies and whose inhabitants have freedom to 'vote with their feet.' The important point is made that the real wealth of the 'bolos' ('bolo' very roughly = 'neighbourhood' in the author's new international core vocabulary) is not financial but lies in their cultural wealth, their diverse spiritual and material potential or 'nima' as the author terms it - 'their habits, philosophy, values, interests, clothing styles, cuisine, manners, sexual behaviour, education, religion, architecture, crafts, arts, colours, rituals, music, dance, mythology, body-painting: everything that belongs to a cultural identity or tradition.' What follows is extracted from the book's footnotes.
'The real wealth of the 'bolos' is not financial but lies in their cultural wealth, their diverse spiritual and material potential'
A typical middle-european Bolo
The Bolo - a context for living
A 'bolo' is the basic agreement (between individuals), a direct personal context for living, producing and dying. It isn't just a traditional neighbourhood, nor a self-help network, nor a tribe. It's true that the number of its inhabitants (500) corresponds to the minimal number of members of the traditional tribe. About 500 individuals form the smallest possible genetic pool of the species Homo sapiens. It seems that this social unit has been typical for all societies of gatherers/hunters for millions of years - (ie well before Homo sapiens came into being. See Richard E. Leakey and Roger Lewin, 'People of the Lake: Mankind and its Beginnings', Avon, 1979, p. 111). So it's probable that we could feel comfortable in communities of this size. Yet a bolo has many other advantages in the fields of agriculture, energy, medicine and cultural identity.
'About 500 individuals form the smallest possible genetic pool of the species Homo sapiens. It seems that this social unit has been typical for all societies of gatherers/hunters for millions of years'
The number of 500 persons seems to be a kind of upper level limit for 'spontaneously' functioning larger social organisms. It corresponds to the inhabitants of typical older urban neighbourhoods in a lot of countries, to an infantry battalion, to the capacity of a larger hall, to the size of a medium enterprise, to a medium-sized school, etc. The reasons are not purely genetic or traditional. The number of 500 persons permits a minimal diversity of age, sex, interests, a basic division of work. At the same time, self-organisation is still possible without special organisms, anonymity is not a necessary consequence (you can still know personally all members of the community, but without necessarily being close friends). Age groups are large enough for social interaction and even endogamy is possible. In an advanced industrialised country there would be about 200 young persons (1-30 years), 200 persons in the middle (30-60), and 100 elderly persons. Age groups (1-9, 10-19, etc) would comprise between 20 and 40 persons (except above 80 years, of course). In Third World areas, these numbers would be different at first (300 young, 150 middle, 50 old), but later on would adapt to the figures above.
'500 persons seems to be a kind of upper level limit for 'spontaneously' functioning larger social organisms'
It's typical for most of the alternative and utopian theorists that they conceive their basic communities from an administrative or purely ecological or technical point of view. This is also the case for anarchist or syndicalist theories and for most utopias.
'The Hopi say that a man cannot be a man when he lives in a community that counts more than 3,000 persons'
Thomas More, in 1516, combines 30 large households into units of about 500 persons ('Thirty households, fifteen from either side, are assigned to each hall and take their meals there.' 'Utopia', Washington Square Press, 1971, p. 59). The basic communities of the 19th-century utopians (Fourier, Saint-Simon, Weitling, Cabet, Owen etc) are mostly larger, because they're oriented towards pure autarchy. Fourier's 'phalansteres' are little universes containing all human passions and occupations. Most modern utopias are in fact totalitarian, mono-cultural models organised around work and education. Ironically, some utopian elements have been used for the conception of prisons, hospitals and in totalitarian regimes (fascism, socialism, etc).
'Most modern utopias are in fact totalitarian, mono-cultural models organised around work and education. Ironically, some utopian elements have been used for the conception of prisons, hospitals and in totalitarian regimes'
In 'A Blueprint for Survival' (The Ecologist, Volume 2, No. 1), the basic units are 'neighbourhoods' of about 500 persons that form 'communities' of 5,000 persons and 'regions' of 500,000 persons, which in turn are the basis for 'nations'. Callenbach ('Ecotopia', Bantam New Age Books, 1975) proposed 'mini-cities' of about 10,000 people and communities of 20-30 persons. In a Swiss study (Binswanger, Geissberger, Ginsburg, 'Wege aus der Wohlstandsfalle', Fischer Alternativ, 1979, p. 233), social units of more than 100 persons are considered to be 'non-transparent', while the Hopi say that 'a man cannot be a man when he lives in a community that counts more than 3,000 persons.' Skinner's 'Walden Two' (Macmillan, 1948) is populated by 2,000 persons, and the largest crowd in his system is 200 persons. See also Galtung's self-reliance communities: 10 squared, 10 cubed, etc.
Most utopias are full of general prescriptions that are compulsory in all their basic dimensions (clothing, work timetables, education, sexuality, etc), and they postulate certain principles of internal organisation (democracy, syphogrants, etc). Reason, practicability, harmony, non-violence, ecology, economic efficiency, morality, all are central motivations. But in a bolo culturally defined people live together and their motivations are not determined by a compulsory set of moral laws. Each bolo is different. Not even a perfectly democratic structure can guarantee the expression and realisation of the desires of the participating persons. This is also a basic flaw of many proposals for self-administration (block councils, neighbourhood-defence committees, soviets, grassroots democracy, etc), especially if such grassroot organisations are initiated and controlled by state or party organisms. Only cultural identity and diversity can guarantee a certain degree of independence and 'democracy'. This is not a question of politics.
'Not even a perfectly democratic structure can guarantee the expression and realisation of the desires of the participating persons. Only cultural identity and diversity can guarantee a certain degree of independence and 'democracy' '
As the bolos are relatively large, there will be subdivisions and supplementary structures and organisms in most of them. Such problems as having (or not having) children, education (or better: no education at all), polygamy, exogamy, relations, etc cannot be dealt with in such a large frame. These structures will be different in every bolo (kanas, families, large households, gangs, single cells, dormitories or not, totems, etc).
'Most properties of an 'ideal tribe' can be applied to the bolo (cultural identity + self-sufficiency + size + hospitality), but the 'real' tribes have left us in the mess we have now. The tribes (that's all of us!) haven't been able to stop the emergence of the planetary work-machine'
For many reasons, the bolos aren't simply tribes - their time has irrevocably gone. The slogan 'Only tribes will survive' sounds beautiful and romantic, but our unfortunate history shows us that tribes haven't survived in most parts of the world, and those that remain are still disappearing. What we know today as tribes are mostly patriarchal, crippled, isolated, defensive and weakened structures, and can serve no longer as practical models. It is true that most properties of an 'ideal tribe' can be applied to the bolo (cultural identity + self-sufficiency + size + hospitality), but the 'real' tribes have left us in the mess we have now. The tribes (that's all of us!) haven't been able to stop the emergence of the planetary work-machine. Once upon a time we were all good savages, yet here's this monster civilisation. There's no reason to assume that the actually surviving tribal societies would have done better - they've just been spared by the circumstances. Only today we can take care of preventing the same 'mistake' (every mistake has got to be made once in history...maybe twice...) happening again. The industrial work-society was not a pure hazard; we've got to face it, learn from it, and no flight into the tribal myth will help us. The real 'Tribal Age' starts just now.
'For many of us, society will never be supportable and a 'good society' is the name of our nightmare'
Social organisation always means social control - even in the case of the flexible, loosely defined bolos. When money disappears as a means of anonymous social control, this control will reappear in the form of personal, direct supervision, interference, constraint. In fact, any form of solidarity or help can also be considered as a form of social constraint. Every bolo will have to deal with the inevitable dialectics of constraint and help in a different way. Personal social control is the 'price' we pay for the abolition of money. Almost nobody will be able to isolate him or herself and to disappear in the anonymous interstices of a mass society like the present, except in those bolos based on conscious anonymity. Society always means police, politics, repression, intimidation, opportunism, hypo-crisy. For many of us, society will never be supportable and a 'good society' is the name of our nightmare. For this reason bolo'bolo cannot be a homogenous system for everybody - there will be left-over spaces for small groups, singles, bums, hermits, etc. Not everybody can live in society. (This aspect is also missing in most utopias or political ideologies - except in good old liberal philosophy, bolo'bolo is closer to liberalism than to socialism ... but liberalism alone is as totalitarian as socialism: the ideology of the dominant)...
Cultural identity
The bolos are not primarily ecological survival systems, for if you only want to survive it's hardly worth it. The bolos are a framework for the living-up of all kinds of life-styles, philosophies, traditions and passions. Bolo'bolo is not a life-style in itself, but only a flexible system of limits (biological, technical, energetical, etc). As for the knowledge of such limits, ecological and alternativist materials can be quite helpful, but they should never serve to determine the content of the different life-styles. (Fascism had its biological elements...). At the core of bolo'bolo there's 'nima' (cultural identity) and not survival. For this same reason, nima cannot be defined by bolo'bolo, it can only be lived practically. No particular 'alternativist' identity (health foods, earth shoes, woollen clothes, Mother Earth mythology, etc) is proposed.
The crucial function of cultural identity is illustrated best by the fate of the colonised peoples. Their actual misery didn't start with material exploitation, but with the more or less planned destruction of their traditions and religions by the Christian missionaries. Even under present conditions many of these nations could be better off - but they just don't know any more why they should be, or what for. Demoralisation goes deeper than economic exploitation. (Of course, the industrialised nations have been demoralised in the same way - it just happened longer ago and has become part of their standard cultures.)
' 'Culture' is more important than 'material survival'. People who are about to starve struggle for their religion, their pride, their language and other 'superstructural fancies' before they demand a guaranteed minimum wage'
On Western Samoa there is no hunger and almost no disease, and the work intensity is very low. (This is due mainly to the climate and to the rather monotonous diet of taro, fruits and pork.) Western Samoa is one of the 33 poorest countries in the world. It has one of the highest suicide rates in the world. Mostly those killing themselves are young people. These suicides are not due to pure misery (even if it cannot be denied that there is misery), but to demoralisation and the lack of perspectives. The Christian missionaries have destroyed the old religions, traditions, dances, festivals, etc. The islands are full of churches and alcoholics. The paradise had been destroyed long before the arrival of Margaret Mead. In spite of some vulgar-Marxist conceptions, 'culture' is more important than 'material survival', and the hierarchy of basic or other needs is not as obvious as it might seem, but rather 'ethnocentric'. Food is not just calories, cooking styles are not luxuries, houses aren't just shelters, clothes are much more than body insulation. There's no reason why anybody should be puzzled if people who are about to starve struggle for their religion, their pride, their language and other 'superstructural fancies' before they demand a guaranteed minimum wage. It is true that these motivations have been manipulated by political cliques, but this is also the case with 'reasonable' economic struggles. The point is, they exist.
'Since the 1960s a period of cultural invention has begun in many - especially industrialised - countries. Having been disappointed by the material riches of the industrial societies, a lot of people have turned to cultural wealth'
Where should the nima come from? It is certainly wrong to look for cultural identities exclusively in old ethnic traditions. The knowledge and rediscovery of such traditions is very useful and can be very inspiring, but a 'tradition' can also be born today. Why not invent new myths, languages, new forms of community life, of housing, clothing, etc? One person's traditions can become another's utopia. The invention of cultural identities has been commercialised and neutralised in the forms of fashion, cults, sects, 'waves' and styles. The spreading of cults shows that a lot of people feel the need for a life governed by a well-defined ideological background. The desire that is perverted in the cults is the one of unity of idea and life - a new 'totalitarianism' ('ora et labora'). If bolo'bolo is called a kind of pluralist 'totalitarianism', that's not a bad definition. It can be said that since the 1960s a period of cultural invention has begun in many - especially industrialised - countries: oriental, Egyptian, folk, magical, alchemical and other traditions have been revived. Experimentation with traditional and utopian life-styles has begun. Having been disappointed by the material riches of the industrial societies, a lot of people have turned to cultural wealth.
Since the nima is at the core of a bolo, there can't be any laws, rules or controls over it. For the same reasons, general regulation on work conditions inside the bolos is impossible. Regulated working time has always been the central show-piece of utopian planners. Thomas More in 1516 guarantees a six-hour day, Callenbach a 20-hour week, Andre Gorz ('Les chemins du Paradis - l'agonie du Capital', Galilee, 1983) proposes a 20,000 hour work life. After Marshall Sahlins' research on 'Stone Age Economics' (1972), the two or three hour day is about to win the race. The problem is, who should enforce this minimal working time, and why? Such regulations imply a central state or a similar organism for reward or punishment.
Since there is no state in bolo'bolo, there can't be any (even very favourable) regulations in this field. It is the respective cultural context that defines what is considered as 'work' (= pain) in a certain bolo and what is perceived as 'leisure' (= pleasure), or if such distinction makes any sense at all. Cooking can be a very important ritual in one bolo, a passion, while in another bolo it's a tedious necessity. Maybe music is more important in the latter, whereas in another bolo it would be considered noise. Nobody can know whether there will be a 70 hour work week or a 15 hour work week in a bolo. There is no obligatory life-style, no general budget of work and leisure, just a more or less free flow of passions, perversions and aberrations.
Paranoia City Verlag, Postfach 406, 8026 Zurich, tel 010 411 241 3705 - Anwandstr. 28, 8004 Zurich; 1985; ISBN 0-936756-08-X; 12 Swiss Francs for the English edition, 15 for the Russian, DM 9.80 for the German. There are also editions in Italian, Portuguese and Dutch. The English edition can also be ordered directly from Semiotext, 522 Philosophy Hall, Columbia University, New York, NY, 10027, USA.
Previous / Next / Table of Contents