What Makes A Village?
Bill Falzett
May 05, 2007
I was an “Army brat” growing up. I was reminded constantly while we were living in government housing I had to behave. If I didn’t, my dad, an Army Sergeant would get a DR. I didn’t know what that was. It sounded pretty bad. I learned later that it meant “Disciplinary Report”. I didn’t always behave but he never got a DR because of me or my siblings. We had too many folks minding our business.
On post, everybody watched everybody’s kids. I guess they were watching each other, too. That part didn’t concern me. I just knew that my mom would get the word about what I was doing. When we moved into the city, people weren’t as vigilant. I didn’t notice then but I now know why. The city wasn’t a village. It was too big. People were too busy and too preoccupied with their own business. In my teens, they were too busy watching television anyway.
The military housing was a ‘village’; there weren’t too many people to keep us from being involved with each other. I remember some folks complaining about others being too involved. I noticed that the complainers were usually the ones doing the most talking about and watching of other folks.
Years later when I became a psychologist, I realized that they really appreciated the security of knowing people were involved even though they complained. We never locked our doors, we kids left our things outside, and my dad always left his car unlocked.
So what makes a village? Neurological and sociological research sets the numbers for an ideal village at 100-200 people. Supposedly human brains can only handle that many relationships without overload neurologically. Larger groups start losing the glue that keeps them together. That glue is shared interests, goals, or efforts. Those can be all sorts of activities from spiritual to economic. But, there is really much more keeping groups together.
One element of a successful village is openness. Specifically, each person is risking their reputation and standing in the community daily. Everyone knows the standards for behavior. Everyone knows who is doing what. Everyone can see and hear. Discussions are open to all. A clear etiquette develops and is respected.
A second necessary element for the village to be successful is that breaches of conduct have consequences. Violators know that their reputations are at stake if they violate the group rules. Their standing in the group will suffer. The consequences do not even have to be particularly harsh in small groups. Simple disapproval, expressions of disdain, or exclusion from some activities modifies behavior.
As groups or communities get larger, individual behaviors affecting the group get more private and cliques arise. Consequences are more difficult to implement and enforce. Catching violators is more complicated. Policing, judging, and punishment get more complicated and harsher. Private can become secret.
The cycle of secrecy, lawbreaking, and harsh consequences spins faster and with more drama. Some folks get preferential treatment based on money, power, and connections. The village loses the third main element for success – fairness for all. Secrecy about things that affect others leads to more deviations from the norm and more rule breaking. While individuals may benefit as individuals or groups within the village, the village itself is at risk for disintegration.
What makes a village? Openness that is respectful of all the members, consequences that are just, and fairness to all make a village. Does the village have to be limited to 100-200 people? Perhaps we can do many small villages with the elements for success? How open and fair can we be as a country of 300 million people? How committed can we be to fairness and justice for all? Fair and just does not mean that all treatment and punishments will be the same for all people. There will be differing circumstances to consider. It should mean that the process of village life based on shared dreams, all the way from openness to consequences, is open to scrutiny by all thereby guaranteeing fairness.
On post, everybody watched everybody’s kids. I guess they were watching each other, too. That part didn’t concern me. I just knew that my mom would get the word about what I was doing. When we moved into the city, people weren’t as vigilant. I didn’t notice then but I now know why. The city wasn’t a village. It was too big. People were too busy and too preoccupied with their own business. In my teens, they were too busy watching television anyway.
The military housing was a ‘village’; there weren’t too many people to keep us from being involved with each other. I remember some folks complaining about others being too involved. I noticed that the complainers were usually the ones doing the most talking about and watching of other folks.
Years later when I became a psychologist, I realized that they really appreciated the security of knowing people were involved even though they complained. We never locked our doors, we kids left our things outside, and my dad always left his car unlocked.
So what makes a village? Neurological and sociological research sets the numbers for an ideal village at 100-200 people. Supposedly human brains can only handle that many relationships without overload neurologically. Larger groups start losing the glue that keeps them together. That glue is shared interests, goals, or efforts. Those can be all sorts of activities from spiritual to economic. But, there is really much more keeping groups together.
One element of a successful village is openness. Specifically, each person is risking their reputation and standing in the community daily. Everyone knows the standards for behavior. Everyone knows who is doing what. Everyone can see and hear. Discussions are open to all. A clear etiquette develops and is respected.
A second necessary element for the village to be successful is that breaches of conduct have consequences. Violators know that their reputations are at stake if they violate the group rules. Their standing in the group will suffer. The consequences do not even have to be particularly harsh in small groups. Simple disapproval, expressions of disdain, or exclusion from some activities modifies behavior.
As groups or communities get larger, individual behaviors affecting the group get more private and cliques arise. Consequences are more difficult to implement and enforce. Catching violators is more complicated. Policing, judging, and punishment get more complicated and harsher. Private can become secret.
The cycle of secrecy, lawbreaking, and harsh consequences spins faster and with more drama. Some folks get preferential treatment based on money, power, and connections. The village loses the third main element for success – fairness for all. Secrecy about things that affect others leads to more deviations from the norm and more rule breaking. While individuals may benefit as individuals or groups within the village, the village itself is at risk for disintegration.
What makes a village? Openness that is respectful of all the members, consequences that are just, and fairness to all make a village. Does the village have to be limited to 100-200 people? Perhaps we can do many small villages with the elements for success? How open and fair can we be as a country of 300 million people? How committed can we be to fairness and justice for all? Fair and just does not mean that all treatment and punishments will be the same for all people. There will be differing circumstances to consider. It should mean that the process of village life based on shared dreams, all the way from openness to consequences, is open to scrutiny by all thereby guaranteeing fairness.
Print
Email
