Oneida Community

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coordinates: 43°3′37.28″N 75°36′18.63″W / 43.0603556°N 75.6051750°W / 43.0603556; -75.6051750

The Oneida Community between 1865 and 1875

The Oneida Community was a perfectionist religious communal society founded by John Humphrey Noyes and his followers in 1848 near Oneida, New York. The community believed that Jesus had already returned in AD 70, making it possible for them to bring about Jesus's millennial kingdom themselves, and be free of sin and perfect in this world, not just in Heaven (a belief called perfectionism). The Oneida Community practiced communalism (in the sense of communal property and possessions), complex marriage, male sexual continence, and mutual criticism.

The community's original 87 members grew to 172 by February 1850, 208 by 1852, and 306 by 1878. There were smaller Noyesian communities in Wallingford, Connecticut; Newark, New Jersey; Putney and Cambridge, Vermont.[1] The branches were closed in 1854 except for the Wallingford branch, which operated until the 1878 tornado[2][3] devastated it.[4][5]

The Oneida Community dissolved in 1881, converting itself to a joint-stock company. This eventually became the silverware company Oneida Limited.[6]

Structure[]

John Humphrey Noyes (1811-1886) led the community

Even though the community only reached a maximum population of about 300, it had a complex bureaucracy of 27 standing committees and 48 administrative sections.[7][better source needed]

All community members were expected to work, each according to his or her abilities. Women tended to do many of the domestic duties.[8][page needed] Although more skilled jobs tended to remain with an individual member (the financial manager, for example, held his post throughout the life of the community), community members rotated through the more unskilled jobs, working in the house, the fields, or the various industries. As Oneida thrived, it began to hire outsiders to work in these positions as well. They were a major employer in the area, with approximately 200 employees by 1870.

Secondary industries included the manufacture of leather travel bags, the weaving of palm frond hats, the construction of rustic garden furniture, game traps, and tourism. The manufacturing of silverware began in 1877, relatively late in the life of the community, and still exists.[6]

Complex marriage[]

The Oneida community strongly believed in a system of free love – a term which Noyes is credited with coining – which was known as complex marriage,[9] where any member was free to have sex with any other who consented.[10][page needed] Possessiveness and exclusive relationships were frowned upon.[11]

Noyes developed a distinction between amative and propagative love.

Complex marriage meant that everyone in the community was married to everyone else. All men and women were expected to have sexual relations and did. The basis for complex marriage was the Pauline passage about there being no marriage in heaven meant that there should be no marriage on earth, but that no marriage did not mean no sex. But sex meant children ; not only could the community not afford children in the early years, the women were not enthusiastic about a regime that would have kept them pregnant most of the time. They developed a distinction between amative and propagative love. Propagative love was sex for the purpose of having children; amative love was sex for the purpose of expressing love. The difference was what Noyes called "male continence" , in which the male partner avoided ejaculation. Noyes argued that this practice not only kept them from producing unwanted children but also taught the male considerable self-control. The system worked very well.[12]

Women over the age of 40 were to act as sexual "mentors" to adolescent boys, because these relationships had a minimal chance of conceiving. Furthermore, these women became religious role models for the young men. Likewise, older men often introduced young women to sex. Noyes often used his own judgment in determining the partnerships that would form, and he would often encourage relationships between the non-devout and the devout in the community, in the hope that the attitudes and behaviors of the devout would influence the attitudes of the non-devout.[13][page needed]

In 1993, the archives of the community were made available to scholars for the first time. Contained within the archives was the journal of Tirzah Miller,[14] Noyes' niece, who wrote extensively about her romantic and sexual relations with other members of Oneida.[1]

Mutual criticism[]

Every member of the community was subject to criticism by committee or the community as a whole, during a general meeting.[15] The goal was to eliminate undesirable character traits.[16] Various contemporary sources contend that Noyes himself was the subject of criticism, although less often and of probably less severe criticism than the rest of the community. Charles Nordhoff said he had witnessed the criticism of a member he referred to as "Charles", writing the following account of the incident:

Charles sat speechless, looking before him; but as the accusations multiplied, his face grew paler, and drops of perspiration began to stand on his forehead. The remarks I have reported took up about half an hour; and now, each one in the circle having spoken, Mr. Noyes summed up. He said that Charles had some serious faults; that he had watched him with some care; and that he thought the young man was earnestly trying to cure himself. He spoke in general praise of his ability, his good character, and of certain temptations he had resisted in the course of his life. He thought he saw signs that Charles was making a real and earnest attempt to conquer his faults; and as one evidence of this, he remarked that Charles had lately come to him to consult him upon a difficult case in which he had had a severe struggle, but had in the end succeeded in doing right. "In the course of what we call stirpiculture", said Noyes, "Charles, as you know, is in the situation of one who is by and by to become a father. Under these circumstances, he has fallen under the too common temptation of selfish love, and a desire to wait upon and cultivate an exclusive intimacy with the woman who was to bear a child through him. This is an insidious temptation, very apt to attack people under such circumstances; but it must nevertheless be struggled against." Charles, he went on to say, had come to him for advice in this case, and he (Noyes) had at first refused to tell him any thing, but had asked him what he thought he ought to do; that after some conversation, Charles had determined, and he agreed with him, that he ought to isolate himself entirely from the woman, and let another man take his place at her side; and this Charles had accordingly done, with a most praiseworthy spirit of selfsacrifice. Charles had indeed still further taken up his cross, as he had noticed with pleasure, by going to sleep with the smaller children, to take charge of them during the night. Taking all this in view, he thought Charles was in a fair way to become a better man, and had manifested a sincere desire to improve, and to rid himself of all selfish faults.[17]

Male continence[]

To control reproduction within the Oneida community, a system of male continence or coitus reservatus was enacted.[18] John Humprey Noyes decided that sexual intercourse served two distinct purposes. In Male Continence, Noyes argues that the method simply "proposes the subordination of the flesh to the spirit, teaching men to seek principally the elevated spiritual pleasures of sexual connection".[19] The primary purpose of male continence was social satisfaction, "to allow the sexes to communicate and express affection for one another".[20] The second purpose was procreation. Of around two hundred adults using male continence as birth control, there were twelve unplanned births within Oneida between 1848 and 1868,[20] indicating that it was a highly effective form of birth control.[21]:18 Young men were introduced to male continence by women who were post-menopause, and young women were introduced by experienced, older males.[21]:18–19

Noyes believed that ejaculation "drained men's vitality and led to disease"[22] and pregnancy and childbirth "levied a heavy tax on the vitality of women".[22] Noyes founded male continence to spare his wife, Harriet, from more difficult childbirths after five traumatizing births of which four led to the death of the child.[21]:17 They favored this method of male continence over other methods of birth control because they found it to be natural, healthy and favorable for the development of intimate relationships.[23] Women found increased sexual satisfaction in the practice, and Oneida is regarded as highly unusual in the value they placed on women's sexual satisfaction.[21]:19 If a male failed he faced public disapproval or private rejection.[23]

It is unclear whether the practice of male continence led to significant problems. Sociologist Lawrence Foster sees hints in Noyes' letters indicating that masturbation and anti-social withdrawal from community life may have been issues.[21]:19 Oneida's practice of male continence did not lead to impotence.[21]:18

Stirpiculture[]

Main article: Oneida stirpiculture

Stirpiculture was a proto-eugenics program of selective controlled reproduction within the Community devised by Noyes and implemented in 1869.[24][25][26] It was designed to create more spiritually and physically perfect children.[27] Community members who wished to be parents would go before a committee to be approved and matched based on their spiritual and moral qualities. 53 women and 38 men participated in this program, which necessitated the construction of a new wing of the Oneida Community Mansion House. The experiment yielded 58 children, nine of whom were fathered by Noyes.

Once children were weaned (usually at around the age of one) they were raised communally in the Children's Wing, or South Wing.[28] Their parents were allowed to visit, but the children's department held jurisdiction over raising the offspring. If the department suspected a parent and child were bonding too closely, the community would enforce a period of separation because the group wanted to stop the affection between parents and children.[29][30] The Children's department had a male and female supervisor to look after children between ages two and twelve. The supervisors made sure children followed the routine. Dressing, prayers, breakfast, work, school, lunch, work, playtime, supper, prayers, and study, which were "adjusted according to 'age and ability'."[13][page needed]

Stirpiculture was the first positive eugenics experiment in the United States, although it was not recognized as such because of the religious framework from which it emerged.[31]

Role of women[]

Oneida embodied one of the most radical and institutional efforts to change women's role and improve female status in 19th-century America.[32] Women gained some freedoms in the commune that they could not get on the outside. Some of these privileges included not having to care for their own children as Oneida had a communal child care system, as well as freedom from unwanted pregnancies with Oneida's male continence practice. In addition, they were able to wear functional, Bloomer-style clothing and maintain short haircuts. Women were able to participate in practically all types of community work.[32] While domestic duties remained a primarily female responsibility, women were free to explore positions in business and sales, or as artisans or craftsmen, and many did so, particularly in the late 1860s and early 1870s.[33] Last, women had an active role in shaping commune policy, participating in the daily religious and business meetings.[32]

The complex marriage and free love systems practiced at Oneida further acknowledged female status. Through the complex marriage arrangement, women and men had equal freedom in sexual expression and commitment.[32] Indeed, sexual practices at Oneida accepted female sexuality. A woman's right to satisfying sexual experiences was recognized, and women were encouraged to have orgasms.[34] However, a woman's right of refusing a sexual overture was limited depending on the status of the man who made the advance.[35]

Ellen Wayland-Smith, author of "The Status and Self-Perception of Women in the Oneida Community", said that men and women had roughly equal status in the community. She points out that while both sexes were ultimately subject to Noyes' vision and will, women did not suffer any undue oppression.[36]

Interactions with society[]

The community experienced freedom from wider society. The previously mentioned unorthodox marital, sexual, and religious practices caused them to face some criticism. However, between the community's beginning in the 1850s until the 1870s, their interactions with wider society were mostly favorable. These are the best known instances of conflict and peace resolution.

Outside criticism[]

In 1870, a "nineteenth century cultural critic" Dr. John B. Ellis wrote a book against Free Love communities that Noyes inspired, including "Individual Sovereigns, Berlin Heights Free Lovers, Spiritualists, Advocates of Woman Suffrage, or Friends of Free Divorce".[37][38] He saw their joint goal to be ending marriage. Dr. Ellis described this as an attack on the prevailing moral order.[37][non-primary source needed] Historian Gayle Fischer mentions that Dr. Ellis also criticized Oneida women's clothing as "healthful' uniforms did not rid Oneida women of their 'peculiar air of unhealthiness' — brought on by "sexual excess."[38]

Noyes responded to Ellis' criticism four years later in a pamphlet, Dixon and His Copytists, where he claimed that Dr. John B. Ellis is a pseudonym for a "literary gentleman living in the upper part of the city."[39] Noyes argued that AMS press employed the writer after they read a Philadelphia paper article on the community and saw a chance to profit off sensationalist writing.[39][non-primary source needed]

Tryphena Hubbard's legal battle[]

In Anthony Wonderly’s Oneida Utopia, he covers the 1848-1851 Hubbard affair as a moment where a legal conflict almost ended the group, who were only a mere "Association" at the time. Twenty-one year old Tryphena Hubbard learned Noyes’ ideas about marriage and sex through his manuscript Bible Argument in 1848. She joined the community and became the group's first local convert. Tryphena Hubbard soon married Henry Seymour, a young man in the community.[40]

Early in 1849, Tryphena's father Noahdiah Hubbard learned of the Association's open marriages and demanded his daughter's return. Tryphena refused and for two years Noahdiah "made a sulking nuisance of himself at the Mansion House."[40]

An 1850 criticism of Tryphena mentioned her "insubordination to the church" as well as "excess egotism amounting to insanity."[40] There was marriage before the community attempted perfectionism and Tryphena's husband's supervision over her was increased along with the "disciplinary norms of the day, physical punishment."[40]

In September 1851 Tryphena began displaying signs of mental illness, "crying at night, speaking incoherently, and wandering around." Seymour went to the Hubbard family to report their daughter's insanity and both parents were appalled by Seymour's physical violence.[40]

On September 27, 1851, Noahdiah Hubbard lodged assault and battery charges on behalf of his daughter.[41] Seymour was indicted and other community members were served arrest warrants as accessories.[40]

The case was settled on November 26, 1851. The community agreed to Tryphena's expenses while she was in the asylum and after her release $125 a year if she was well and $200 a year if she remained unwell. The Hubbards eventually accepted a $350 settlement in lieu of long term payments. Tryphena Hubbard eventually returned to Henry Seymour and had a child by him. She died at the age of 49 in 1877.[41]

Decline[]

The community lasted until John Humphrey Noyes attempted to pass leadership to his son, Theodore Noyes. This move was unsuccessful because Theodore was an agnostic and lacked his father's talent for leadership.[42] The move also divided the community, as Communitarian John Tower attempted to wrest control for himself.[7][better source needed] Towner and a breakaway group eventually moved to California where they convinced the government to create a new municipality for them, Orange County.[43]

Within the commune, there was a debate about when children should be initiated into sex, and by whom. There was also much debate about its practices as a whole. The founding members were aging or deceased, and many of the younger communitarians desired to enter into exclusive, traditional marriages.[44]

The capstone to all these pressures was the campaign by Professor John Mears of Hamilton College against the community. He called for a protest meeting against the Oneida Community, which was attended by forty-seven clergymen.[45] John Humphrey Noyes was informed by trusted adviser Myron Kinsley that a warrant for his arrest on charges of statutory rape was imminent. Noyes fled the Oneida Community Mansion House and the country in the middle of a June night in 1879, never to return to the United States. Shortly afterward, he wrote to his followers from Niagara Falls, Ontario, recommending that the practice of complex marriage be abandoned.

Complex marriage was abandoned in 1879 following external pressures and the community soon broke apart, with some of the members reorganizing as a joint-stock company. Marital partners normalized their status with the partners with whom they were cohabiting at the time of the re-organization. Over 70 Community members entered into a traditional marriage in the following year.

During the early 20th century, the new company, Oneida Community Limited, narrowed their focus to silverware. The animal trap business was sold in 1912, the silk business in 1916, and the canning discontinued as unprofitable in 1915.

In 1947, embarrassed by their progenitor's legacy, Noyes' descendants burned the group's records.[46][47]

The joint-stock corporation still exists and is a major producer of cutlery under the brand name "Oneida Limited". In September 2004 Oneida Limited announced that it would cease all U.S. manufacturing operations in the beginning of 2005, ending a 124-year tradition. The company continues to design and market products that are manufactured overseas. The company has been selling off its manufacturing facilities. Most recently, the distribution center in Sherrill, New York, was closed. Administrative offices remain in the Oneida area.

The last original member of the community, Ella Florence Underwood (1850–1950), died on June 25, 1950, in Kenwood, New York, near Oneida, New York.[48][49]

Legacy[]

From a 1907 postcard

Many histories and first-person accounts of the Oneida Community have been published since the commune dissolved itself. Among those are: The Oneida Community: An Autobiography, 1851–1876[50] and The Oneida Community: The Breakup, 1876–1881,[51] both by Constance Noyes Robertson; Desire and Duty at Oneida: Tirzah Miller's Intimate Memoir and Special Love/Special Sex: An Oneida Community Diary, both by Robert S. Fogarty; Without Sin by Spencer Klaw; Oneida, From Free Love Utopia to the Well-Set Table by Ellen Wayland-Smith; and biographical/autobiographic accounts by once-members including Jessie Catherine Kinsley, Corinna Ackley Noyes, George Wallingford Noyes, and Pierrepont B. Noyes.

An account of the Oneida Community is found in Sarah Vowell's book Assassination Vacation. It discusses the community in general and the membership of Charles Guiteau, for more than five years, in the community. (Guiteau later assassinated President James A. Garfield.) The perfectionist community in David Flusfeder's novel Pagan House (2007) is directly inspired by the Oneida Community.[citation needed] There is a residence building called "Oneida" at the Twin Oaks Community in Virginia. Twin Oaks, an intentional community, names its buildings after defunct intentional communities.[52]

Oneida Community Mansion House[]

Main article: Oneida Community Mansion House

The Oneida Community Mansion House was listed as a National Historic Landmark in 1965,[53] and the principal surviving material culture of the Oneida Community consists of those landmarked buildings, object collections, and landscape. The five buildings of the Mansion House, separately designed by Erastus Hamilton, Lewis W. Leeds, and Theodore Skinner, comprise 93,000-square-foot (8,600 m2) on a 33-acre site. This site has been continuously occupied since the community's establishment in 1848 and the existing Mansion House has been occupied since 1862. Today, the Oneida Community Mansion House is a non-profit educational organization chartered by the State of New York and welcomes visitors throughout the year with guided tours, programs, and exhibits. It preserves, collects and interprets the intangible and material culture of the Oneida Community and of related themes of the 19th and 20th centuries. The Mansion House also houses residential apartments, overnight guest rooms, and meeting space.[citation needed]

References[]

  1. ^ Jump up to: a b Chmielewski 2001, pp. 176–178.
  2. ^ Harper's Weekly v. 22 #1131 1878.
  3. ^ The Roslyn News 1878.
  4. ^ Brew & Roper 2014.
  5. ^ Social Welfare History Project 2015.
  6. ^ Jump up to: a b Hays 1999.
  7. ^ Jump up to: a b MacHovec 2010.
  8. ^ Kern 1981.
  9. ^ Foster 1997.
  10. ^ Stoehr 1979.
  11. ^ DeMaria 1978, p. 83.
  12. ^ Claeys & Sargent 2017, p. 218.
  13. ^ Jump up to: a b Noyes 1937.
  14. ^ Herrick & Fogarty 2000.
  15. ^ Noyes & Oneida Community 1876.
  16. ^ Parker 1935, p. 215.
  17. ^ Nordhoff 1875, pp. 292–293.
  18. ^ Sandeen 1971.
  19. ^ Noyes 1872, p. 13.
  20. ^ Jump up to: a b Van Wormer 2006.
  21. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Foster 1986.
  22. ^ Jump up to: a b Mandelker 1982, pp. 742–3.
  23. ^ Jump up to: a b Mandelker 1982, p. 743.
  24. ^ McGee 1891.
  25. ^ Woodhull 2012, pp. 273–283.
  26. ^ Herndon 1989.
  27. ^ Richards 2004, pp. 47–71.
  28. ^ Youcha 2009, pp. 110–114.
  29. ^ Matarese & Salmon 1983.
  30. ^ Heim 2009, p. 59.
  31. ^ Prince 2017, p. 96.
  32. ^ Jump up to: a b c d Foster 1991, pp. 91–102.
  33. ^ Kern 1981, p. 260.
  34. ^ Kern 1981, pp. 224, 232.
  35. ^ Kern 1981, p. 241.
  36. ^ Wayland-Smith 1988, p. 49.
  37. ^ Jump up to: a b Ellis 1870, pp. 10–13.
  38. ^ Jump up to: a b Fischer 2001, p. 58.
  39. ^ Jump up to: a b Noyes 1871, pp. 37–39.
  40. ^ Jump up to: a b c d e f Wonderley 2017, pp. 72–74, 137.
  41. ^ Jump up to: a b Noyes & Foster 2001, p. lv.
  42. ^ Hillebrand 2017.
  43. ^ Olenick 2021.
  44. ^ Roach 2001.
  45. ^ Wells 1961.
  46. ^ Smith 2016.
  47. ^ Wayland-Smith 2016, p. 257–260.
  48. ^ The New York Times 1950.
  49. ^ TIME 1950.
  50. ^ Robertson 1970.
  51. ^ Robertson 1972.
  52. ^ Adams 1973.
  53. ^ National Historic Landmarks Program 2011.

Sources[]

Further reading[]

External links[]

Retrieved from ""