Helping hands: intentional communities and social capital development. Evidence from Portugal

‘Mãos amigas’: comunidades intencionais e desenvolvimento de capital social. Dados de Portugal

ABSTRACT

Introduction:

Building upon the theoretical frameworks of Pierre Bourdieu and Nan Lin regarding social capital, this study examined the capacity of two Portuguese intentional communities (ICs) to cultivate and promote social capital. Our goal was to assess the decommodification potential of these alternative social structures and their role in mitigating social inequality.

Materials and methods:

Our data collection involved a combination of participant observation and semi-structured interviews. Additionally, we employed slightly adapted versions of social capital mapping and measurement techniques, incorporating the identification of contacts with prestigious positions/occupations (Position-Generator) and access to relevant resources (Resource-Generator).

Results:

Our findings indicate that social networks developed in the context of intentional communities can play a crucial role in promoting the accumulation of economic benefits and human capital, as well as in fostering the development of social identity and offering emotional support. However, notable disparities emerged between the two case studies concerning their capacity to reduce market dependence and the value of the different forms of mobilized social capital. In one instance, community economies based on collective, profitable activities effectively addressed basic needs through communal labour. Conversely, in the other case, while community economies based on individual enterprises reduced the personal costs associated with meeting basic needs, this led to increased dependence on external, temporary employment. Within this context, individual social capital, such as intra-community relationships, emerges as pivotal for securing economic gains, such as enhanced employability and the acquisition of new skills.

Discussion:

The internal structure of intentional communities directly impacts the development of social capital and the reduction of market dependence, thereby playing a crucial role in promoting equality and inclusion. While intentional communities offer emotional benefits, they may also present barriers to entry for individuals with limited financial resources. Continued longitudinal studies are essential to assess whether the initial diversity within these communities translates into social equality and to identify the contributing factors to such outcomes.

Keywords
intentional communities; community development; social capital; socioeconomic benefits; Portugal

RESUMO

Introdução:

Partindo de uma concepção de capital social baseada nas teorias de Pierre Bourdieu e Nan Lin, analisamos a capacidade de duas comunidades intencionais (ICs) portuguesas para fomentar o desenvolvimento de capital social. Procuramos avaliar o potencial desmercantilizador destas organizações sociais alternativas e o seu papel na mitigação de desigualdade social.

Materiais e métodos:

Os dados foram recolhidos através de observação-participante e entrevistas semiestruturadas. Incluímos também versões ligeiramente modificadas de mecanismos de mapeamento e medição de capital social através da identificação de contatos com cargos/ocupações reputadas (Position-Generator) e acesso a recursos relevantes (Resource-Generator).

Resultados:

Redes sociais podem promover a acumulação de benefícios econômicos e capital humano, além de apoiar a construção de identidade social e fornecer suporte emocional. Contudo, há distinções significativas entre os dois casos quanto à capacidade de reduzir a dependência do mercado e ao valor das distintas formas de capital social mobilizado. Em um caso, economias comunitárias baseadas em atividades coletivas lucrativas se mostram eficientes em atender necessidades básicas por meio do trabalho comunitário. No outro, apesar das economias comunitárias apoiadas em empreendimentos individuais diminuírem os custos pessoais de atender necessidades básicas, isso leva a uma maior dependência de trabalhos temporários externos. Neste contexto, o capital social individual, como os relacionamentos dentro da comunidade, é crucial para benefícios econômicos, como empregabilidade aquisição de novas competências.

Discussão:

A estrutura interna das comunidades intencionais influencia diretamente o desenvolvimento de capital social e a redução da dependência do mercado, sendo fundamental para a promoção de igualdade e inclusão. Apesar de oferecerem benefícios emocionais, podem existir barreiras à entrada para indivíduos menos abastados. Pesquisas longitudinais são necessárias para avaliar se a diversidade inicial dessas comunidades leva à igualdade social e quais fatores contribuem para isso.

Palavras-chave
comunidades intencionais; desenvolvimento comunitário; capital social; benefícios socioeconômicos; Portugal

I. Introduction¹

Over several centuries, groups of people have attempted to build a fairer society. Among those attempts stand alternative communal living projects outside or distanced from the mainstream society that sought to achieve a certain level of decommodification² (e.g., Lockyer et al., 2011; Meijering, 2006; Oved, 2017; Sargisson, 2010).

Some of these projects have been named intentional communities. Standing as communal solutions to such discontentment, they are a place where a group of people seeks to develop their own lifestyle, fulfill shared values and objectives, and promote a better society and way of life (Mulder et al., 2006; Meijering et al., 2007; Sargisson, 2010; Lockyer et al., 2011; Rubin et al., 2019). As the development of a community is their main objective, some studies associate these projects with the production of some benefits (Meijering, 2006; Mulder et al., 2006; Sargisson, 2010; Lockyer et al., 2011), among which one may highlight the generation of social capital (i.e., capacity to access and mobilize resources embedded in one's social networks), which has been seen as a way of reducing social inequalities (e.g., Lin, 2000; DeFilippis, 2001).

In this context, this study aims to answer the following research question: (how) can intentional communities provide social capital to their members? By doing so, we aim to contribute to the sparse literature on socio-economic benefits generated by intentional communities (Lockyer et al., 2011) and integrate it into a social capital theoretical framework.

This research was developed in a scenario theoretically unfavourable to the establishment of intentional communities –Portugal³ (see, e.g., Borio, 2003) – and essentially consisted of an in-depth analysis of two communities distinct in their type: Ananda Kalyani and Cabrum. The data collection techniques consisted of a participant-observation approach along with semi-structured interviews conducted with community members.

We start by briefly discussing the concepts of social capital and intentional communities. This discussion is followed by an overview of the methodological approach adopted, after which we proceed to a comparative analysis of the case studies, based on data collected according to the selected theoretical framework of social capital.

II. Literature review

II.1. The concept of social capital

The term social capital has been widely debated over the past decades and is currently characterized by distinct conceptualizations. Although this concept has been used before, it was through Putnam's work that it achieved considerable popularity. Putnam (1993) initially presented this phenomenon as being made up of three mutually reinforcing features of a social structure responsible for fostering cooperation - trust, norms, and networks (of civic engagement). In his following works on this issue, the author has come to conceive social capital's outcomes - which could have different natures, both ‘private’ (e.g., emotional support) and ‘public’ (e.g., neighbourhood safety) - as social capital itself (Putnam, 2000).

The approach used in this article does not follow Putnam's conception since, as argued elsewhere (e.g., Lin, 2001; DeFilippis, 2001), his notion of social capital uproot it from the capital and associates it with phenomena (trust or social norms) that, although important, are external to the actual process of generating social capital.

Alternatively, we follow a group of authors who conceive of social capital as resources embedded in an individual's social network that they have the right to access and mobilize to obtain certain returns (e.g., goods or services). Among these authors, Bourdieu and Lin developed solid theoretical analyses that continue to serve as a framework for more recent studies (e.g., DeFilippis, 2001; Hällsten et al., 2015; Van der Gaag et al., 2008; Martínez et al., 2022).

Bourdieu (1997) defines this phenomenon as the total amount of real and potentially mobilizable resources associated with membership of a group of individuals (e.g., family, club) bound together by lasting and useful ties (strong ties). The amount of social capital an individual possesses therefore depends mainly on the amount of capital (economic, social, and cultural) owned by those to whom they are linked (Bourdieu, 1997). These ties, however, are not socially or naturally given or established once and for all, as they need to be maintained through endless efforts of sociability that may generate an unspecific feeling of debt among those on the other side of the tie (Bourdieu, 1997).

Additionally, Bourdieu (1997) perceives social capital as capable of being accumulated at the group level (in the context of very close-knit groups), namely when the power to act on behalf of the group is delegated to one or a small set of members. This last conceptualization has been criticized by other authors, who consider that Bourdieu places too much focus to strong ties and fails to acknowledge the value of weak ties (acquaintances) and bridges (a tie appearing as the only connection between two different groups) in facilitating access to new resources (Burt, 2001; Lin et al., 2001).

Alternatively, Lin (2001, p. 17) chose to focus his study at the individual level. In his approach, social capital should be perceived as an “investment in social relations by individuals, through which they gain access to embedded resources to enhance expected returns”. Accordingly, social capital should encompass three elements: an investment (influenced by public goods, such as norms and trust or position in a social hierarchy); access and mobilization of embedded resources (either in one's own network or in those of one's contacts); and returns from the investment made (Lin, 2001).

For Lin (1986, 2001), the purposes motivating the access and mobilization process may be of distinct natures and lead to distinct types of returns: instrumental (wealth, power, or reputation) or expressive (physical and psychological health and life satisfaction⁴). In this regard, it should be added that such gains may not be produced immediately, as they may require frequent and unspecific exchanges with acquaintances or friends (Van der Gaag & Snijders, 2005a).

Combining the theoretical contributions of Bourdieu and Lin, we understand social capital in this article as the quantity and quality of resources embedded in a social network that its members may mobilize (acting individually or as a group, provided the network has a strong cohesion and closure and that institutionalized ties are shared) to obtain certain instrumental or expressive returns. As Lin and Bourdieu argue, claims to such resources emerge from previous and continuous intentional or incidental investments (e.g., providing others with resources or services) in these social ties, which are maintained through reciprocity (Shafer & Vargas, 2016, p. 1800). The processes of access and mobilization may rely either on the gratitude of the other, investment strategies, or on institutionalized obligations (membership rights and duties) (Bourdieu, 1997; DeFilippis, 2001). Access and mobilization of resources may therefore be understood at two levels: individual (Figure 1) and group-level (Figure 2). At the individual level, to Lin's (2001) original schematic representation of the social capital mobilisation process, which synthesises both authors' core understanding of the concept, we added Bourdieu's (1997) valuable contribution regarding the factors influencing this process (the contact/other's sense of indebtedness or self-interest).

Figure 1
Social capital: individual access and mobilization

At the group-level, Bourdieu's notion needs to be adapted to allow for some level of group openness (see Martinez et al., 2022). This adaption may be provided by resorting to DeFilippis' (2001) understanding of social capital, which he argues to be only conceivable within a group of individuals characterized by its capacity to attract capital (group openness) and to allow its members - who are bound by institutionalized ties - to maintain control over possessed capital (group closure). Group-level resource mobilization is thus also institutionalized by membership obligations (i.e., making resources available to others) or rights and aims to benefit everyone through joint instrumental actions (see Figure 2). This collective mobilization of resources, differing from Bourdieu's notion of delegation, will be conceived as an alternative mobilization process (DeFilippis, 2001).

Figure 2
Social capital: group-level access and mobilization

Having clarified the selected social capital theoretical framework, we proceed with the context in which it will be studied.

II.2. Intentional communities and the promotion of social capital

In general terms, intentional communities (ICs) arise from the gathering of a group of individuals whose main goal is to establish a community where they can develop a certain lifestyle (Meijering, 2006; Rubin et al., 2019). What distinguishes ICs from conventional communities is their intentionality. That is, they consist of deliberate attempts to build a different lifestyle apart from the mainstream society, which their members perceive as a better way of life⁵ (Meijering et al., 2007; Lockyer et al., 2011; Mulder et al., 2006; Sargisson, 2010).

More specifically, ICs consist, at their basic level, of a group of at least four or five persons (not exclusively linked by kinship ties), who voluntarily join to live together in a given locality, so they can gather strength to improve their lives and eventually intervene in mainstream society (Lockyer et al., 2011; Sargent, 2013). Moreover, this communal living is associated with some degree of economic sharing, namely property-holding, which varies from one community to another (Meijering et al., 2007; Lockyer et al., 2011; Sargent, 2013).

Despite the existence of these common characteristics, the concept of ICs entails a variety of communities ranging from communes, eco-villages, religious communities, communities of squatters, or co-housing (Sargent, 1994, 2013). To cope with such diversity, the taxonomy created by Meijering et al. (2006, 2007) may be useful, as they identified the following four types of ICs, according to location, ideology, economic situation and social position regarding mainstream society.

• • Religious communities are focused and united through religious beliefs and characterized by the following: a relatively strong rejection of/withdrawal from mainstream society, although maintaining eventual connections with the outside (e.g., the assistance of those in need); the development of strong relations within the community, reinforced by shared ceremonies, and also with like-minded groups, sometimes through international networks; and a limited economic sufficiency;

• • Ecological communities whose major concerns are related to attaining an ecological and economically sustainable living, usually in remote locations. They reduce economic exchanges with society by refraining from using consumer goods or working outside the community, and thus aim to achieve economic self-sustainability;

• • Communal communities focus on interpersonal relationships and are characterized by the sharing some common facilities which function as meeting points (e.g., a kitchen) and the establishment of strong ties within the community, although they maintain an external orientation in terms of relationships.

Despite the growing number of ICs worldwide in recent decades and the fact they tend to be perceived as important everyday laboratories where social experiments are carried out, there are only a limited number of scientific studies about the benefits generated by these communities (e.g., Lockyer et al., 2011; Labit, 2015; Markle et al., 2016). Some of this work is mainly related to the promotion of social capital, although not necessarily conceptualized according to our understanding.

Studies on ICs at large have come to highlight gains in social capital and other socio-economic benefits. For instance, Lockyer et al. (2011) point to gains in social capital among IC members, who have emphasized their ease in mobilizing common resources and a strong level of support in times of need. Even in co-housing communities a communal sense of belonging tends to lead to mutual assistance, engagement in common tasks (e.g., cooking) and sharing meals (Labit, 2015; Sargisson, 2017). These communities are also said to generate economic benefits resulting from a reduction in living costs (e.g., providing affordable housing) due to cost-sharing schemes and the sharing of common infrastructures (see Lockyer et al., 2011; Pickerill, 2020; Sargisson, 2017). Some ICs can even provide their members with (different) forms of income (see e.g., Sargisson, 2010). Finally, it should be noted that some authors have shown concern for the fact that (over time) ICs display a certain racial and class exclusivity, as they tend (even if unintentionally) to be composed essentially of white middle-class members (e.g., Lockyer et al., 2011; Pickerill, 2020).

This study aims to make an additional contribution to the existing literature by fully identifying and including these potential benefits (returns) in a theoretical framework of social capital. By doing so, a more integrated approach to its generation process is offered.

III. Methodological approach

To understand if and how intentional communities can provide access to relevant network-embedded resources, we adopted an inductive comparative case study research strategy, as this is ideal for analysing phenomena within their real-life context through an intensive empirical study (Yin, 1994).

Given the lack of precise information on the population of cases in Portugal, we started our research by creating a database of ICs in Portugal, checking registrations in four IC-related online networks (Ecobasa; Rede Convergir; Global Ecovillage Network; Fellowship of Intentional Communities) in the WWOOF (World Wide Opportunities on Organic Farms) network or mentioned in the 2014 edition of Eurotopia. Forty-two ICs were identified through this method and contacted via email or Facebook from October 2016 to April 2017. Twenty-two responses were obtained, of which only eleven revealed that the community was still active and fitted the adopted IC conceptualization. Additional information was obtained from those eleven ICs, which enabled their classification according to Meijering et al. (2007) typology, even if some hybridity was identified: seven ecological communities; three religious/spiritual communities; and one communal community.

Considering this information, we chose to study two cases: Ananda Kalyani (AK), a religious IC, and Cabrum, an ecological IC. The selection of cases followed a most-similar systems design rationale, i.e., cases that are similar across a considerable number of variables (size, location, socioeconomic background of members) but differ in a small set of other variables (type of IC, relevance of shared economy).

With regard to data collection methods, we opted for a set of instruments inspired by an ethnographic methodologic approach composed of participant-observation techniques and semi-structured interviews. In the participant-observation technique, the first author took a field role (participant as observer) that implied a deeper involvement in the daily life of the informants (e.g., Takyi, 2015), to identify ties established inside and outside the community and their everyday utility. This strategy was developed by entering the two case studies as a short-term volunteer for about 15 days each, in June and July 2017.

The outcomes of this approach were meant to complement the information obtained through a set of semi-structured interviews⁶ conducted with a number of community members as wide as possible - we managed to interview nine (out of thirteen) members of AK and five (out of nine) members in Cabrum. The script (see ^{Appendix 1}) entailed an introductory question conceived to gain knowledge about the interviewee's background (e.g., school achievement, expertise, etc.), followed by three groups of questions.

The first of these groups brings together two batteries of questions that consist of two modified inquiring mechanisms used to identify (and measure) social capital -Position Generator (PG) and Resource Generator (RG). On the one hand, the Position Generator consists of a practical measure of access to social capital by assessing the individual's links to a set of listed social positions (e.g., social occupations) that concentrate particular resources valued by a given collective (e.g., power, wealth and reputation) (Lin et al., 2001; Hällsten et al., 2015). These indexes have, however, been adapted, as they may be unsuitable for divergent cases of communities and individuals since what is perceived as valuable depends on “the needs, goals and opportunities (...) of individuals making up the population” (Van der Gaag & Snijders, 2005a, p. 155) (this idea was later validated by two interviewees.). Therefore, we adapted the list of occupations (see ^Appendix 1 battery of questions number 5) as to fill in the common needs and struggles of ICs. In this way, we attempted not only to include specialists in (income earning) activities normally associated with the type of studied ICs such as organic farming and eco-construction (see Borio, 2003; Christian, 2003; Meijering, 2006), but also a set of occupations that could be of use in solving common troubles faced by ICs (e.g., obtaining special building permits) (Borio, 2003). We kept a large number of them linked to economic and cultural capital (Flap & Völker, 2008). Furthermore, given the goal of mapping ties and understanding their quality and history, the PG survey-like structure was replaced by two questions: “who” occupies that position and “how” the tie was established. On the other hand, the Resource Generator, which generally incorporates a checklist of specific/useful (im)material resources that may be mobilized through instrumental or expressive actions (Van der Gaag & Snijders, 2005b), was added, and modified according to the same reasoning as PG (see ^{Appendix 1} battery of questions number 7).

The other two groups were created to compensate for the limitations of these goal-oriented techniques by covering the gains from frequent and non-specific interactions and to capture access to and mobilization of resources at the group level.

In the following section, the two case studies are analysed according to several criteria: (1) the general characteristics of the communities (including a brief historical introduction); (2) the style of communal experience and links with external agents; and (3) the processes and returns of capitalization, both at a group and individual level.

IV. Comparing case studies

IV.1. Overall community traits

IV.1.1. Brief historical introduction of both communities

a) Ananda Kalyani

The Ananda Kalyani community, one of the main endeavours of Ananda Marga (AM)⁷ (Portugal), was conceived to follow the model of a self-sustainable community (Master Unit) designed by P.R. Sarkar (Ananda Marga's spiritual master). This concept of community is deeply linked to PROUT, a macroeconomic theory conceived by Sarkar to produce a socioeconomic development capable of suppressing social inequality and poverty, while at the same time “preserving and enhancing the natural environment” (Maheshvarananda, 2012, p. 9). According to this theory, an ideal community (or Master Unit) should be able to fulfil a minimum of five services: a) organic farming and production of raw materials for agro-industries; b) produce textiles for clothing; c) offer primary and secondary education; d) hold medical units that promote alternative treatments; and e) offer housing for the poor (Maheshvarananda, 2012, p. 137). Therefore, it is possible to classify Ananda Kalyani as a spiritual community, although somehow diverging from the ones studied by Meijering (2006).

Ananda Kalyani was founded around 2010 by a group of four people and has undergone several changes. This communal context only began to emerge between 2015 and 2016. At the time of our field research (2017), the community consisted of 13 members.

b) Cabrum

Cabrum is a community project that is named after the small village where it is located, which had previously been abandoned. A documentary about abandoned Portuguese villages, broadcast by a Portuguese TV channel, was the starting point for a group of five people interested in establishing an ecologically sustainable community there. After contacting the local authorities and property owners, this group managed to obtain a five-year contract, through which they were given free access to most of the property of the village. Since its creation in 2012, the number of members has fluctuated considerably before reaching 13 members at the time of our field research.

IV.1.2. Community composition, style of community experience and links with external actors

As we can deduce from the brief introduction above, these communities comprise two distinct types of IC. AK is essentially a religious/spiritual community in which community members (mainly Ananda Marga devotees) organize their daily lives according to a set of religious principles expressed in programmed spiritual practices. On the other hand, Cabrum is an ecological community whose members' goal is to consolidate an ecologically sustainable community life project, following permaculture guidelines.

However, neither community can be seen as a ‘pure’ representative of each type. As suggested above, AK members also have ecological and self-sustainability concerns. Like ecological communities, AK has developed organic farming as one of its main economic activities and has sought to interact with the outside world by organizing workshops/courses on organic farming, beekeeping and so on. On the other hand, Cabrum demonstrates a spiritual dimension through shared spiritual practices that have come to generate strong intra-community socialization dynamics which are typical of a spiritual community.

Both communities were located in rural contexts in the Central Region of Portugal and consisted of 13 members by the time of our field research. In both cases, the members were mostly young adults (15-34 years old) or adults (35-44 years old).

Other similarities emerge when addressing social class and educational background, as both communities were mainly (although not exclusively) made up of middle-class members who, at the very least, attended university, even if AK members had higher levels of educational attainment.

Despite these similarities, the case studies differed in some aspects. In terms of depth of community experience, AK appears to offer a stronger community experience, since most of its members inhabit the same house and follow a shared schedule of community work and spiritual practices. In Cabrum, a certain balance prevails between community and private living, which is promoted by the members (organized in nuclear families) living in their own lodgings.

Another point of divergence between communities relates to the role played by the community's sharing economy. On the one hand, Ananda Kalyani consists of an income-sharing community (see Christian, 2003, p. 155) in which an income-sharing plays a central role in supporting daily communal living. On the other, Cabrum stands as a private income community (see Christian, 2003, p. 155), in which members keep their private finances and contribute with agreed-upon fees to a communal economy that plays a secondary role in the members' livelihood. These findings are in line with what is expected from religious/spiritual and ecological community types (see Meijering, 2006). However, unlike ‘pure’ types, AK's shared economy does not rely on its members' private finances, but rather on joint profit-making activities, which provide them with financial support. Also unexpectedly, Cabrum's shared economy relies heavily on fixed taxes on families' earnings resulting from their profit-making activities and pre-established communal contributions.

In terms of external social networks, like the two in-depth religious communities studied by Meijering (2006), AK is part of Ananda Marga's worldwide hierarchical network of devotees and other communities. Additionally, it is also part of local and regional networks of like-minded (non-AM-related) communities and individuals. As for Cabrum, it has formed local and national networks of like-minded individuals through its own association (Amakura). As a member of WWOOF and Rainbow Gathering, Cabrum is also able to integrate loose-knit international networks of individuals potentially sharing their values.

Finally, attention must be paid to each community's hierarchy and inner power distribution, as this may affect each member's process of social capital access and mobilisation, as will be described below. Although both cases present a hierarchical structure mainly based on membership length (expressed by the different status members occupy on the communal decision-making bodies), it is important to highlight that AK members are additionally submitted to an extra-community Ananda Marga spiritual hierarchy. National Ananda Marga spiritual leaders enjoy a certain authority in the community's strategic decision-making, although this does not replace the hierarchy of the duration of membership.

IV.2. Comparing case studies' capitalization processes and returns

Bearing in mind what has been mentioned above, the comparison between the two case studies should be extended to cover their ability to offer members opportunities to mobilize social capital. This will allow us not only to analyse the ability of both cases to do this, but also to understand whether the differences between them are relevant to impacting their ability to increase social capital and its productivity.

VI.2.1. ‘Acting together’: group access and mobilization of embedded resources and (potential) returns

According to the theoretical framework adopted, access to and mobilization of social capital at group level is possible in two different ways: delegation, which occurs when the group delegates the power to act on its behalf to a certain member or group of members so that they perform a certain task, expecting to obtain certain benefits for all its members through the use of delegatee's skills and resources; and, collective mobilization of resources, resulting from institutionalized duties to obtain certain returns.

a) Delegation

By allocating tasks to each member, considering their skills and resources and through coordinated and simultaneous actions in different areas, AK members manage not only to overcome constraints of time and space but also to mobilize their members' skills and resources in instrumental actions. According to some members (AK1, AK2[M], AK3 and AK5[M]), delegating the power to develop external collaborations (e.g., jointly organizing events such as courses, workshops or organic farming markets) to some members (AK1, AK2[M] and AK3) enabled the community to get access/mobilization to the social capital developed by these members and integrate into a network of collaboration with local producers, experts, associations and political authorities.

These networks have enabled the community (and its members) to make a significant economic, social, and human capital related gains. It should be stressed that by human capital, we understand a set of productive resources (e.g., knowledge, skills, experience) that, once acquired through processes of personal investment, are embodied, and become inseparable from the individual who attained it and may be mobilised to acquire further human capital and economic returns (see Lin & Erickson, 2008). We opt for the concept of human capital instead of Bourdieu's (1979) notion of cultural capital, since some of the productive resources (e.g., knowledge of natural construction or permaculture) do not necessarily match those whose value is determined by the elites and that characterise cultural capital. The above-mentioned benefits can be obtained directly or indirectly. Examples of direct forms are the establishment of sales and distribution networks for agriculture-related goods (as in the example of the markets or a local cooperative co-founded by AK, in which we participated with community members)(see, e.g., Prama Academy, 2018), and direct contact with experts (e.g., in organic farming)⁸, who are often included in AK's profitable events (Município do Fundão, 2017). According to some members interviewed (AK1 and AK2), examples of indirect forms are the free use of facilities run by local organizations to host community events or the free publicity of events, as provided by the Fundão City Hall.

In addition, several members mentioned that the human capital of specific members is also mobilised to ensure the production of goods related to agriculture, as well as one of the community's main sources of income, obtained through running a software company. On an informal level, members' ties with the outside world (particularly AK5), especially with Ananda Marga network, have also been mobilized to get more volunteer workforce, and artists for the community festival or to obtain economic capital (through donations).

In the case of Cabrum, delegation has allowed its members to benefit from time, economic and human-related gains. As revealed by C1 and C2 and through field observation, the first two include the delegation of more practical of tasks (e.g., cooking shared meals, childcare), but also the weekly assignment of tasks as essential as maintaining the community's off-grid water supply or organic farming project, which, as mentioned by several members, enabled a reduction of individual expenses. Other gains in terms of time, economic and human capital result from the mobilization of members' social capital, which allows the community to collaborate with (1) like-minded groups, whose volunteer workforce is mobilized for arduous tasks such as creating firebreaks⁹; (2) experts from whom community members may learn to develop their skills (i.e., human capital) by attending workshops and other events held at Cabrum; and (3) local political authorities, which enable them to participate in local events such as fairs that may potentially generate income for the shared economy, depending on prior agreement between members, as stressed by C2.

b) Collective mobilization

As Ananda Kalyani only establishes the commitment to work for the community as a membership obligation, this type of mobilization is based exclusively on the skills and availability of its members. In the case of AK, collective mobilization occurs when facing hard-working tasks (e.g., constructing the main stage of community festival) or during AM restaurant’s participation in summer festivals, which is a significant source of income for the sharing economy¹⁰.

In this regard, Cabrum differs from AK, since membership is more demanding. This is perhaps a consequence of the fact that the private economic sphere is the main source of income for members and the community's sharing economy. Members are not only expected to work for the community - namely during what community members name ajudadas¹¹ - but they must also contribute a certain amount of money to the shared economy and play an equal part in covering certain running expenses (e.g., meals, electricity) and investment (e.g., equipment or land acquisition) when carrying out profitable economic activities. Besides, to become a full member, a person is expected to pay an entrance fee. Other individual economic resources must be invested if someone chooses to live in a community-owned house. All these pooled resources are mobilized by the group to award its members with certain economic returns.

c) Returns from group-level instrumental actions

The returns that arise from group-level instrumental actions reward members differently in both communities.

In AK, members have access to free accommodation and related expenses, such as gas and meals (i.e., basic expenses). As mentioned by all interviewees, an allowance is also given to long-term members if they do not have other sources of income. As for Cabrum, they offer all members free access to land, affordable housing, and lower costs for basic expenses, as revealed by some interviewees (C1, C2, C3 and C4).

While AK proves to be especially rewarding for members who are fully committed to the project, Cabrum demands and rewards the same in terms of investments and returns. These differences may result from the fact that the economic benefits Cabrum provides its members depend mainly on the collective mobilization of the wealth that its members must make available to each other (resulting, essentially, from private profit-making activities). On the other hand, the economic gains of AK members derive mainly from the returns of both processes through which the community's two main sources of income are generated.

IV.2.2. ‘On one's behalf’: individual access and mobilization of embedded resources and (potential) returns

Having compared the group-level access and use of embedded resources, we proceed to address what returns members attain when accessing/mobilizing resources on their behalf and how these processes take place.

a) Instrumental actions and returns

Through instrumental actions, individuals in both communities can achieve economic returns and human capital, spare time, and reduction of work effort as well as gains in reputation/status.

In terms of sparing time/work effort, community membership in both cases allows individuals to ask some (or even all) members for help with their particular endeavours. These requests may include tasks ranging from occasional assistance with building one's own house (Cabrum)¹² or support in particular income-generating projects, such as participation in a local public fest (AK)¹³, to asking for help with smaller-scale activities, such as chopping firewood (Cabrum - mentioned by C3[F]) or assistance with assigned chores (AK and Cabrum). Time gains may be valuable, as, for instance, some of Cabrum members (C2[F] and C3) profit from extra time to produce goods (e.g., clothing) to be sold later. In this regard, one of Cabrum members (C2) stressed that a particularly important advantage of communitarian living is the delegation of tasks such as cooking or nursing the kids which is usually the responsibility of women:

“(...) [E]very day one community member has to cook for everyone and that's really good. (...) And that happens with the kids as well, often someone is assigned to take care of the children. It has happened many times and it is extremely helpful”.

As for human capital gains, in both cases, they may result from individuals taking part (for free or at low cost) in workshops/courses organized by the community and engaging directly with the invited experts - in other words, making use of resources made available to them. In this regard, AK1[M] shares, for instance, his experience as an AK member:

“Since September [2016] up to May [2017], we organized workshops and courses on organic farming, biodynamics and also beekeeping. (...) I focused on farming/agriculture. I participated in all courses for free, except for one, because I decided to contribute with a small amount to keep the community from losing money with the organization of the event. But... Yes, I have free access to these workshops for which we usually charge 70 to 80 euros”.

Moreover, such gains may come from seeking advice or learning from other community members (or their contacts) with perceived valuable skills and knowledge (e.g., in eco-construction). As to this purpose, C5[F] mentioned specific knowledge gained in eco-construction: “I learned (...) about bioconstruction, because of [C6-N]. He is doing bioconstruction. He [is] rebuild[ing] the oven here and then at [C1]'s house.”.

Acquired human capital may potentially be transformed into economic gains through the integration into courses organized by the community or through external activities for income gain. In Cabrum, C1 stated feeling ready to be integrated as an instructor in a future permaculture course held at the community following the knowledge acquired from previous Cabrum-organised courses, while in AK, AK3 started to give yoga classes for profit following the spiritual teachings of the project.

Economic gains can be achieved in different forms: (temporary) jobs/opportunities to gain income; free access to facilities and publicity for group members to hold their own events; and burden-sharing solutions.

With regard to the first aspect, the relationships connecting Cabrum members may be more useful, as they are more involved (out of necessity) in external profit-making activities, which are their main sources of income and are therefore important resources to acquire. This situation thus gives them the ability to offer work placements to other members (e.g., in individual projects such as C2 and C4 [M]'s summer festival restaurant or C1's theatre crew) and/or to share contacts in their network among themselves that may provide opportunities for income gain. In AK's case, extra sources of income may potentially arise by attaining opportunities to carry out profitable activities embedded in the community's collaboration ties and, depending on the member's skills, in the community-related activities/enterprises. For instance, AK1 has been an employee at the community's software enterprise and AK3 holds her yoga class in one of the community rooms.

As for the second point, both cases provide accessible and mobilisable facilities (for free or at low cost) for their members to hold events and, in AK's case, a network of contacts through which free publicity can be acquired. Additionally, money-sparing is achievable by burden-sharing solutions such as: reaching agreements with other members to jointly acquire equipment or goods for private use (Cabrum)¹⁴; car/bike-sharing and carpooling (a widespread practice at AK); or directly exchanging favours (e.g., goods for services) (Cabrum)¹⁵.

In conclusion, by providing other members and the whole group with access to valuable resources, members accumulate a sort of ‘social credit’, which in both cases is transformed, with time, into reputation and status within the community (e.g., full-member status). Such acquired status and the capacity to use such social credit was evidenced, for instance, by AK1 in his explanation of why he decided to start asking for monthly allowance:

“All in all, I do invest a lot of money here. I buy tools with my own money. And, so, it reached a point where it was not affordable... with this allowance, I can say I am neither losing nor making money”.

This may not only be important to reach a position where one's voice may influence the way common resources are used (which seems to be easier to achieve to a full extent in Cabrum¹⁶), but also to strengthen one's claim on the group's resources - especially in the case of AK, as seen from AK1's example - and on the resources embedded in relationships with other members (in both cases).

b) Expressive actions and returns

Cabrum offers its members (except short-term members) a formal mechanism (the Emotional Circle) for them to receive and provide emotional support (expressive action), or, as Lin (1986) conceives it, a place to find understanding and share emotions and frustrations.

In AK, this mechanism is not provided, nor is there, according to the interviewees, a habit of members sharing feelings and frustration openly with one another. The community members interviewed tended to indicate one, or at most, two community members with whom they would feel comfortable sharing their feelings and seeking comfort. Furthermore, this was admitted as a flaw during one of the daily community meetings, which provided an opportunity for some members to speak about what and how they felt. Nevertheless, the community itself is still perceived by them as a ‘shelter’ (e.g., AK8[M]) or a ‘family’ (AK2), where it is possible to feel safe and find emotional support or stability when facing struggles (AK1, AK2, AK3, AK4 and AK6¹⁷). This seems to result from the fact that members access and mobilize emotional support through frequent and unspecific interactions with like-minded individuals (i.e., community members) where they manage to find understanding, as well as behaviour and mindset confirmation (Van der Gaag & Snijders, 2005a). This idea was expressed by AK6[M]:

“[Before I joined the community] I tried to share my feelings (...) and what I thought [about becoming vegan] with my friends. But I expressed myself effusively, you see? (...) And we ended up turning our backs on each other, because (...) I was no longer the person they knew. And, thus, they did not understand me. (...) The idea that Ananda Kalyani sets forth is to change this [animal cruelty] and live sustainably side by side with the other animals”.

As observed in both cases, if an individual is aligned with the community's mindset and lifestyle, he/she manages not only to access this generalized reassuring sense of understanding and behavioural confirmation but also to ‘use’ it in a way that may enable individuals to affirm their self-worth, by perceiving themselves as part of a community project seen as a valuable example of alternative living. This is expressed in the following excerpt from an interview with C4 concerning a visit from a film crew (Público, 2018):

“They were here for two days. And it was enough for them to get to know our project (...). I showed them my house. I showed some details. And I told them that this was an example for the youngsters. [To show them] that they don't have to spend 30 years [of their lives] paying for a house”.

Taking Lin's model into consideration, this may be perceived as an expressive return that may, in the short or long run, lead to mental health and life satisfaction. Further confirmation of one's worth (as well as one's mindset) may also be granted by interaction with like-minded groups/individuals and by the interest in the project expressed by members (e.g., relatives, friends, or acquaintances) and institutions (e.g., media¹⁸) of mainstream society. As it can be perceived from the case of Cabrum, this ability to affirm self-esteem and the value of the lifestyle seems to be feasible, even if the community is surrounded by an immediate context where members face some stigmatization and hostility. Evidence of this divergence was witnessed when, on one occasion, an interaction between a group of community members and a small shopkeeper from the village (located near the community) turned sour after the latter made a derogatory comment about the former's clothes and lifestyle.

However, if community members are at odds with the community's mindset and practices, along with a feeling of powerlessness to change their status within the community, this situation may lead to negative emotional outcomes (e.g., feeling that they are not in the right place). This was the case for three AK members (AK7[F], AK9[M] and AK11-N[F]). These feelings are evidenced by AK9 (a European Voluntary Service volunteer in the community) in the following excerpt:

“If I had a girlfriend, in the beginning, I couldn't stay home with my girlfriend. They told me like that. Or you know, at home you cannot drink alcohol. You cannot have it at home. (...) It seems so conservative”.

V. Discussion of results

Although it can be argued that both communities manage to reward their members with a reduction in their living expenses and with some sources of income by engaging them in resource-wise relevant networks, they diverge considerably as to the way they do so (see Table 1). One factor that seems to explain these differences is the community's focus on an income-share or private-earnings-based economy. This factor plays a major role in the following aspects: the level of investments that members are expected to make to be part of the network; and the productivity of the different levels of social capital.

Relying on a private income community economy, Cabrum offers its members a softer level of decommodification, as contributions must come mainly from members' earnings and wealth and not just from their willingness to work for the community, which leads them to rely on their own stock of human capital and on temporary jobs (due to the commitment to work for the community) to acquire more economic resources. Similar dynamics have been identified in other bigger ecological communities (see e.g., Ergas, 2010; Esteves, 2017). As some suggest (Esteves, 2017; Christian, 2003, p. 157), this may prove to be troublesome for individuals who lack these types of resources and capital and, consequently, struggle to get access to income-earning opportunities. This, in turn, may lead to the middle-class homogeneity that is said to characterise ICs (e.g., Pickerill, 2020). In this type of community, the individual mobilization of economic and human capital made available by the community and, above all, fellow members appears to be particularly relevant. If communities imply some degree of class heterogeneity, lower-class members can benefit from access to diverse and valuable resources and information provided by wealthier members (DeFilippis, 2001). The tendency of some members of the community to ‘hire’ other members on Cabrum can potentially lead to this outcome.

Ananda Kalyani seems to generate a higher degree of decommodification, which is mainly due to the prominent role of mobilisation of resources at the group level. This mobilisation capacity depends on an income-sharing economy based on communal work commitment as the sole membership institutionalized obligation. This arrangement makes it possible to cover the basic expenses of those who are fully committed to daily work at the community and - when the full-member status is achieved - to attribute a monthly allowance. Therefore, community members have guaranteed access to economic resources without having to depend directly on their ability to access the labour market (higher level of decommodification). This arrangement resembles that of the communities that challenged the notion of private propriety studied by Sargisson (2010), particularly the New Zealand Riverside Community. In this way, this communal arrangement makes it less demanding (in terms of individual stocks of economic and human capital) for new members to live in the community without having to rely on odd jobs, as it happens in the case of private income-based community economies.

More than places that can contribute, to a certain extent, to the de-commodification of their members' lives, ICs serve as communal contexts in which a shared social identity, a sense of purpose, and a lifestyle emerge and are validated within and sometimes outside the community. When in tune with the community's values and practices, members can find understanding and affirmation of their personal value and lifestyle, especially through non-specific and frequent interactions. This stems from the sense of feeling ‘useful’ (see Sargisson, 2017, p. 145) by belonging to a project that is seen as a model for an alternative way of living to be proposed to mainstream society. These expressive returns identified in these two communities are noteworthy, because they may offer a solution to a more emotional dimension of social problems, such as social exclusion, which is related to the loss of a basis for social identity (Castel, 1999).

Table 1
Comparison of the two communities

		Ananda Kalyani	Cabrum
General features	Type of community	Religious (displays certain features of an ecological community)	Ecological (displays slight features of a religious community)
	Number of members	13 (7 Portuguese)	13 (7 intentional; 4 Portuguese)
	Age	Young adults/adults (no children)	Young adults and adults (3 children)
	Form of membership	New members are integrated as single members (ushers in a stronger form of communal living)	New members are integrated into the community as a new household/family (provides a stronger balance between private and communal living)
	Extra-communal social network	Integrated into an international spiritual organization (Ananda Marga)	Integrated into a national network through the community's organization (Amakura)
Political and economic organization	Power structure	Based on membership length and position occupied within Ananda Marga's spiritual hierarchy. The former tends to prevail over the latter	Based on membership time-length
	Decision-making bodies	• Strategic decision-making bodies tend to be exclusive (though the composition is changeable) • Daily decision-making bodies are more inclusive
	Economic organization	Shared economy prevails over the private one	Private economy prevails over the shared one
Social capital (group level) collective mobilization	Institutionalized duties	Availability to work for the community	• Monetary contributions • Availability to work for the community
	Resources mobilized/Form of mobilizing resources	Mobilization of the members' working force/skills during the community's enterprises (e.g., participation in summer festivals, preparing community events)	• Mobilization of the members' working force/skills at shared tasks: ‘ajudadas’ • Mobilization of economic capital through the taxation of each member's lucrative activities and shared contribution to pay for running expenses and investments in the community's projects
Social capital (group level) delegation	Institutionalized duties	Availability to work for the community
	Resources mobilized		• Social and human capital • Availability to work for the community
Social capital (group level) gain	Collective mobilization	Economic capital (income/investments): the community's running expenses and investments covered; members' basic expenses covered; attribution of an allowance for long-term members (more than one-year membership)	Economic capital (reduced costs): reduction of the cost of individual basic expenses and that of the community running expenditures/investments
	Delegation	• Economic capital (income) same as above • Human and social capital (e.g., interaction with experts in areas of knowledge such as organic farming) • Time: for additional voluntary work, leisure
Social capital (individual level) Instrumental capitalization	'Practical' gains	Time and effort: help with community's tasks or individual projects (e.g., AK - running a selling stand at a local fair; Cabrum - building one's house)
	Human capital	• Through the participation in workshops, courses and events organized by the community on topics such as organic farming • By learning from community members
	Economic gains	• Sources of income: opportunity to run one's lucrative activities in the community or in collaboration with organizations the community has established ties with. • Cost reduction: space to hold your own events (free of charge or at low cost); car-sharing and pooling	• • Sources of income: short term employment opportunities within the community; • • Cost reduction: room for holding events of one's own (free of charge or at low cost); burden-sharing arrangements and direct exchange of favours
	Reputation	• Acquiring a status within the community that strengths one's claim to the mobilization of community's resources • Acquiring a status within the community that facilitates one's access and mobilization of other members' resources
Social capital (individual level) expressive mobilization	Specific interactions	Emotional support (mental health):AK - provided through private interactions with close friends at the communityCabrum - institutionalized routine (called the emotional circle) for openly sharing feelings and frustration with other community members
	Frequent unspecific interaction	Strengthening one's sense of self-worth (mental health and satisfaction with life): finding understanding and confirmation of one's behaviour and lifestyle

Source: own elaboration (2023).

VI. Final notes

This study sought to analyse the capacity of intentional communities to increase the social capital of their members. Its contributions to the literature are twofold. On a theoretical level, it combined Bourdieu's and Lin's approaches to social capital to present and empirically illustrate a theoretical framework for analysing how social capital can be (simultaneously) mobilised and capitalised at the group and individual levels.

At an empirical level, it sought to add to the literature on intentional communities by providing some hints on the kind of material and emotional benefits that these non-mainstream communal arrangements can provide to their members and how they do so. Through a most-similar systems design strategy, this study also sought to understand how certain factors, such as the depth of communal engagement and communal economic arrangement, might affect the outcomes in terms of social capital mobilisation and capitalisation capacity.

In broader terms, we believe that our study raises an important hypothesis for further research: ICs whose members' income depends mainly on instrumental returns from group-level access and the mobilisation of embedded resources are more likely to generate relevant decommodification effects in the lives of their members.

Despite this general assumption, it must be taken into account that other variables, which have been neutralized in this study, may play a role in the impact of this hypothetical causal effect. One of these variables is the socio-economic background of the members (in general, our selected cases were made up of middle to upper-middle class individuals), as the smaller volume of social resources available to the group may compromise the productivity of the group's level of social capital. Another variable is also the location of the community - since both cases were in rural settings - as an urban location may influence not only the economic activities carried out by community members, but also their interaction strategies with outsiders. This situation may encompass other (conflicting) contexts than those applicable to rural communities (Meijering, 2006).

In addition, it may be interesting to capture the effects over time on income, expenses and skill gains from working-class individuals who join ICs.

Future studies may build on these hints to further support our conclusions.

• 1
  We would like to thank anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments that have greatly improved this article.
• 2
  This concept means one's capacity to maintain a certain livelihood without relying on the market for revenue (Esping-Andersen, 1998, p. 21-22).
• 3
  Along with Spain and Italy, Portugal has a relatively low number of ICs, which may be explained by the difficulty in obtaining building permits and low disposable income among youngsters (Borio, 2003, p. 736).
• 4
  Achieved by mobilising emotional support (i.e., finding understanding, sharing emotions and frustrations) (e.g., Van der Gaag & Snijders, 2005b).
• 5
  This latter aspect remains a disputed topic since some authors and with communities themselves refusing such a label (Sargent, 2013).
• 6
  In the results sections these interviews are identified by codes, which consists of the initial letters of the name of the community followed by a number resulting from a random ordering of the interviews. Codes by “-N” mean that the person was not interviewed. Whenever necessary, we reveal the gender of the interviewee by adding [M] or [F].
• 7
  An international non-profit socio-spiritual organization, based on the teachings and thoughts of its founder Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar. Founded in India in 1955, it expanded its activities to Portugal around 1988 (Ananda Marga, n.d.).
• 8
  Curiously, when asked about whether they could name experts in organic farming or other related areas, AK members were not only more likely to point towards non-community members, but also name a larger set of contacts outside the community than Cabrum members. This points towards AK's better integration in its social surroundings when compared to Cabrum.
• 9
  C4 mentioned particularly an artistic association in Oporto (Casa Bô) and a nearby local group (Landeira).
• 10
  While in the field, we had the opportunity to witness such mobilization, as preparations were being made for the upcoming community festival (Ananda Festival).
• 11
  Community mechanism of joint mobilisation of members' time/work-effort towards a certain communitarian task.
• 12
  During our stay, one of the running tasks assigned to all community members was contributing to the construction of C1's new house (e.g., carrying building material).
• 13
  At the time of our field study, one community member (AK13-n) partook in a local public fest (Fundão's Cherry Fest) and received aid from several community members in tasks such as cooking (AK4), attending customers (AK9, AK8, AK12-n) or equipment transportation (AK6, AK3).
• 14
  An example of burden-sharing was a joint purchase of a van by two community members from different nuclear families C2 and C7-N[F].
• 15
  One of the cases mentioned was a direct exchange between two households (C2[F] and C4[M]/ C6-N[M] and C7-N[F]) in which the former managed to ensure their ecological house's upkeep by the latter in exchange for the latter's sojourn at the house during that period.
• 16
  As explained previously, AK members more connected with the daily work at the Master Unit tend to be side-lined in strategic decision-making bodies, which does not happen in Cabrum.
• 17
  Although AK6[M] only mentioned one community member (his partner) that he would turn to for emotional support, he later stated that in the community he found support and everything that he needed.
• 18
  Both cases have been targeted by media coverage. Cabrum has been featured in a documentary that received wide (inter)national approval (Serra, 2016) and several news articles have been written about the community (A aldeia de Cabrum já esteve desabitada, 2018). Ananda Kalyani's community festival has gained some media exposure (Covilhã tem festival numa quinta ecológica, 2017; RTP, 2017).

References

• Borio, L. (2003) Intentional communities in Italy, Spain and Portugal. In: K. Christensen & D. Levinson (eds) Encyclopedia of community: from the village to the virtual world . Thousand Oaks: Sage, pp. 736-738.
• Bourdieu, P. (1979) Les trois états du capital culturel. Actes de la Recherche en Sciences Sociales, 30, pp. 3-6.
• Bourdieu, P. (1997) The forms of capital. In: A.H. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown & A.S. Wells (eds) Education: culture, economy, and society Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 46-58.
• Burt, R.S. (2001) Structural holes versus network closure as social capital. In: N. Lin, K. Cook & R.S. Burt (eds) Social capital: theory and research New York: Aldine de Gruyter, pp. 31-56.
• Castel, R. (1999) As metamorfoses da questão social: uma crónica do salário Petrópolis: Editora Vozes.
• Christian, D.L. (2003) Creating a life together: practical tools to grow ecovillages and intentional communities Gabriola Island: New Society Publishers.
• DeFilippis, J. (2001) The myth of social capital in community development. Housing Policy Debate, 12(4), pp. 781-806. DOI
  » DOI
• Eurotopia. (2014) Eurotopia: Leben in Gemeinschaft Sieben Linden: Würfel Verlag.
• Ergas, C. (2010) A model of sustainable living: collective identity in an urban ecovillage. Organization & Environment, 23(1), pp. 32-54.
• Esping-Andersen, G. (1998) The three worlds of welfare capitalism 7th Edition. Oxford: Polity Press.
• Esteves, A.M. (2017) “Commoning” at the borderland: ecovillage development, socio-economic segregation and institutional mediation in southwestern Alentejo, Portugal. Journal of Political Ecology, 24, pp. 968-991. DOI
• Flap, H. & Völker, B. (2008) Social, cultural, and economic capital and job attainment: the position generator as a measure of cultural and economic resources. In: N. Lin & B. Erickson (eds) Social capital: an international research program New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 65-80.
• Hällsten, M., Edling, C. & Rydgren, J. (2015) The effects of specific occupations in position generator measures of social capital. Social Networks, 40, pp. 55-63. DOI
• Labit, A. (2015) Self-managed co-housing in the context of ageing population in Europe. Urban Research & Practice, 8, pp. 32-45. DOI
  » DOI
• Lin, N. (1986) Conceptualising social support. N. Lin, A. Dean & W.M. Ensel (eds) Social support, life events and depression Orlando: Academic Press, pp. 17-30.
• Lin, N. (2000) Inequality in social capital. Contemporary Sociology, 29(6), pp. 785-795. DOI
  » DOI
• Lin, N. (2001) Building a network theory of social capital. In: N. Lin, K. Cook & R.S. Burt (eds) Social capital: theory and research New York: Aldine de Gruyter, pp. 3-30.
• Lin, N. & Erickson, B. (2008) Theory, measurement, and the research enterprise on social capital. In: N. Lin & B. Erickson (eds) Social capital: an international research program New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-26.
• Lin, N., Fu, Y.C. & Hsung, R.M. (2001) The position generator: measurement techniques for investigations of social capital. In: N. Lin, K.S. Cook & R.S. Burt (eds) Social capital: theory and research New York: Aldine de Gruyter, pp. 57-84.
• Lockyer, J., Benson, P., Burton, D., Felder, L.A., Hayes, D., Jackey, E. & Lerman, A. (2011) “We try to create the world that we want”: intentional communities forging liveable lives in St. Louis. Center for Social Development Working Papers n. 11-02. [online]. St. Louis: Washington University. Available at: <https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/csd_research/835/>. Accessed on: April 20^th, 2021.
  » https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/csd_research/835/
• Maheshvarananda, D. (2012) After capitalism: economic democracy in action San Gérman: InnerWorld Publications.
• Markle, E.A., Rodgers, R., Sanchez, W. & Ballou, M. (2016) Social support in the cohousing model of community: a mixed-methods analysis. Community Development, 46(5), pp. 616-631. DOI
  » DOI
• Martínez, R., Balletbò, I.G. & Benito Pérez, R. (2022) Infraestructura relacional y reproducción en la escuela: una relectura de Bourdieu en clave interaccional. Revista Española De Sociología, 31(3), pp. 1-21. DOI
  » DOI
• Meijering, L. (2006) Making a place of their own: rural intentional communities in northwest Europe Ph.D. Dissertation. Groningen: University of Groningen.
• Meijering, L., Huigen, P. & Van Hoven, B. (2007) Intentional communities in rural spaces. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 98(1), pp. 42-52. DOI
  » DOI
• Mulder, K., Costanza, R. & Erickson, J. (2006) The contribution of built, human, social and natural capital to quality of life in intentional and unintentional communities. Ecological Economics, 59(1), pp. 13-23. DOI
  » DOI
• Oved, Y. (2017) [1993] Two hundred years of American communes Abingdon: Routledge.
• Pickerill, J. (2020) Eco-communities as insurgent climate urbanism: radical urban socio-material transformations. Urban Geography, 42(6), pp. 738-743. DOI
  » DOI
• Putnam, R.D. (1993) Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
• Putnam, R.D. (2000) Bowling alone: the collapse and revival of American community New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.
• Rubin, Z., Willis, D. & Ludwig, M. (2019) Measuring success in intentional communities: a critical evaluation of commitment and longevity theories.Sociological Spectrum, 39(3), pp. 181-193. DOI
  » DOI
• Sargent, L.T. (1994) The three faces of utopianism revisited. Utopian Studies, 5(1), pp. 1-37.
• Sargent, L.T. (2013) Theorizing intentional community in the twenty-first century. In: E. Ben-Rafael, Y. Oved & M. Topel (eds) The communal idea in the 21^st century . Leiden: Brill, pp. 53-72.
• Sargisson, L. (2010) Friends have all things in common: utopian property relations. The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 12, pp. 22-36. DOI
  » DOI
• Sargisson, L. (2017) Swimming against the tide: collaborative housing and practices of sharing. In: A. Ince & S.M. Hall. Sharing economies in times of crisis: practices, politics and possibilities New York: Oxford University Press.
• Schafer, M.H. & Vargas, N. (2016) The dynamics of social support inequality: maintenance gaps by socioeconomic status and race? Social Forces, 94(4), pp. 1795-1822. DOI
  » DOI
• Takyi, E. (2015) The challenge of involvement and detachment in participant observation. The Qualitative Report, 20(6), pp. 864-872. DOI
  » DOI
• Van der Gaag, M. & Snijders, T. (2005a) Proposals for the measurement of individual social capital. In: H. Flap & B. Völker (eds) Creation and returns of social capital London: Routledge, pp. 154-169.
• Van der Gaag, M. & Snijders. T. (2005b) The resource generator: social capital quantification with concrete items. Social Networks, 27, pp. 1-29. DOI
• Van der Gaag, M., Snijders, T. & Flap, H. (2008) Position generator measures and their relationship to other social capital measures. In: N. Lin & B. Erickson (eds) Social capital: an international research program New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 27-48.
• Yin, R.K. (1994) Case study research: design and methods Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Other sources

• A aldeia de Cabrum já esteve desabitada, mas hoje atrai novos habitantes (2018). Público. [online], December 10. Available on: <https://www.publico.pt/2018/12/10/p3/reportagem/aldeia-cabrum-ja-desabitada-hoje-atrai-novos-habitantes-1854163>. A ccessed on: May 2^nd, 2021.
  » https://www.publico.pt/2018/12/10/p3/reportagem/aldeia-cabrum-ja-desabitada-hoje-atrai-novos-habitantes-1854163
• Aldeia comunitária no interior de Portugal # viver no campo [Video]. YouTube. Available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdQcj9xUyPs>. Accessed on: March 13^th, 2024.
  » https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdQcj9xUyPs
• Ananda Marga (n.d.) História. Available at: <https://anandamarga.pt/sobre-a-am/historia/>. Accessed on: March 13^th, 2024.
  » https://anandamarga.pt/sobre-a-am/historia/
• Covilhã tem festival numa quinta ecológica, sem álcool nem drogas (2017). Observador [Online], June 8 Available at: <https://observador.pt/2017/06/08/covilhao-tem-festival-numa-quinta-ecologica-sem-alcool-nem-drogas/>. Accessed on: May 2^nd, 2021.
  » https://observador.pt/2017/06/08/covilhao-tem-festival-numa-quinta-ecologica-sem-alcool-nem-drogas/
• Município do Fundão, 2017 (January 12). [Image attached] [Status update]. Facebook. Available at: <https://www.facebook.com/MunicipiodoFundao/photos/gm.1833881326887715/1414381338625595/?type=3&theater>. Accessed on : March 13^th, 2024.
  » https://www.facebook.com/MunicipiodoFundao/photos/gm.1833881326887715/1414381338625595/?type=3&theater
• Prama Academy (2018, May 2). Nesta sábado na Covilhã. Vamos! [Image attached] [Status update]. Facebook. Available at: <https://www.facebook.com/PramaAcademyPT/posts/1928258353864664>. Accessed on: March 13^th, 2024.
  » https://www.facebook.com/PramaAcademyPT/posts/1928258353864664
• RTP, 2017 (14^th July) Bom dia Portugal [video]. RTPPlay. Available at: <https://www.rtp.pt/play/p3024/e298293/bom-dia-portugal/588239>. Accessed on: May 2^nd, 2021.
  » https://www.rtp.pt/play/p3024/e298293/bom-dia-portugal/588239
• Serra, P. (2016) Que estranha forma de vida [video file]. Vimeo. Available at: <https://vimeo.com/122685684?fbclid=IwAR0VplgEFETV-Wqgc1wgCXrtmW5OwnfXOW3ZOezxTLEgmIdE9_AoSaeH9B4>. Accessed on: January 2^nd, 2020.
  » https://vimeo.com/122685684?fbclid=IwAR0VplgEFETV-Wqgc1wgCXrtmW5OwnfXOW3ZOezxTLEgmIdE9_AoSaeH9B4

Interview script

1. 1 – Please, tell me a little bit about what you used to do before coming here. What did you study? Did you have a job? How have you found out about this community? Why have you chosen to come and live here?

2. 2 – Inside the community is there a group of tasks that you are mainly responsible for? What sort of tasks do you do inside the community? Is it somehow related to what you used to do before?

3. 3 – Are you developing or would you consider developing an individual project inside the community? Do you feel that you (would) have access privileged conditions to do so here? If yes, can you name some of them? If not, why?

4. 4 – How do you proceed in order to upgrade your knowledge and skills in the areas that you are working in or that you interest yourself for? Have you acquired or developed any skills that you would like to highlight?

5. 5 – Among friends and acquaintances – acquaintances standing for people you would know on a first name basis and if you happened to find on the street you would be able to establish a conversation with him/her – do you know someone with the following position or job:

   • • Expert in organic farming, permaculture, beekeeping, eco-construction Sociocracy or another area that you have interest for? Who? How have you met him/her?

   • • Researcher or university teacher? Who? How have you met him/her?

   • • Lawyer? Who? How have you met him/her?

   • • Someone working in Local Public Administration? Who? How have you met him/her?

   • • Someone working in State Public Administration? That is, in a State Institution (such as Direcção Geral ou Regional de Agricultura)? Who? How have you met him/her?

   • • Someone holding a political office? Who? How have you met him/her?

   • • Local Producer? Who? How have you met him/her?

   • • Artist, Musician or musical band? Who? How have you met him/her?

   • • Journalist or someone working in the media? Who? How have you met him/her?

   • • A member of a Summer Festival organization? Who? How have you met him/her?

   • • Someone having the possibility to offer you a job position? Who? How have you met him/her?

1. 6 – Can you please tell me what are the community’s main sources of income and expenses? How is the income distributed? And, if you feel comfortable, what are your main sources of income and expenses?

2. 7 – Among friends and acquaintances – acquaintances standing for people you would know on a first name basis and if you happened to find on the street you would be able to establish a conversation with him/her – do you know someone capable of offering you privileged access to the following resources:

   • • A place for you to sell goods? Who? How have you met him/her?

   • • A place for you to hold events? Who? How have you met him/her?

   • • Publicising of events? Who? How have you met him/her?

   • • Help in your daily work or when you may be in need of help? Who? How have you met him/her?

   • • Emotional support? Who? How have you met him/her?

   • • Technical support and counselling in areas such as eco-construction, organic farming, permaculture, organic farming certification access or another area that is important for you? Who? How have you met him/her?

   • • Ask a specialist in (one of the previously referred areas) yoga, meditation, beekeeping, sociocracy to take part in a workshop or course? Who? How have you met him/her?

   • • Counselling regarding legal matters? Who? How have you met him/her?

   • • Information and counselling regarding access to public funds? Who? How have you met him/her?

   • • Informal loaning considering an amount of circa 1000€? Who? How have you met him/her?

   • • Access to a selling stand at a Summer Festival? Who? How have you met him/her?

   • • Information and privileged access to the land and housing market? Who? How have you met him/her?

   • • Someone that offers you consumable goods? Who? How have you met him/her?

   • • Help in a time of need (that is, when facing hard times)? Who? How have you met him/her?

1. 8 – Can you tell me how do you establish rules overseeing communitarian living?

2. 9 – Related to this point, how do you come to make decisions here?

3. 10 – Within this decision-making process what place is there left for individuals with diverging opinions from the majority to express themselves and to be heard?

4. 11 – What is your opinion on the decision-making process?

5. 12 – Do you feel free, if you ever needed or desired, to (temporarily) distance yourself from this project?

6. 13 – Looking back, how would you evaluate your decision to join the community? What positive and negative aspects would you like to highlight?

7. 14 – What are your future plans and your thoughts on the community’s future?

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  31 May 2024
• Date of issue
  2024

History

• Received
  07 Oct 2022
• Reviewed
  02 Aug 2023
• Accepted
  03 Oct 2023