User Profile

I became interested in this book when I heard about the Twin Oaks intentional community in rural Virginia, a commune that has been going strong since 1967. When I saw a copy of Walden Two in a second-hand book store, I wanted to see what kind of novel could inspire people to pack up their belongings and try an alternative way of living together.

The novel was written in 1948, and it unintentionally provides a peek into post-war, post-depression America. Universities use Quonset huts as lecture halls. Presumably well-paid lecturers Burris and Castle travel by bus, not private car. And young, university-degreed ex-officers Steve Rogers and Rodge Jamnik face an uncertain future, expecting to live in unsafe neighborhoods and having to do demeaning work.

This is the kind of novel where no "action" happens, other than that the characters argue about ideas. I love these kinds of novels, and Skinner is a good writer, adding just enough character conflict to keep you hooked. But some people might find this novel unrewarding.

The characters mentioned above (accompanied by Rogers' and Jamnik's fiancées Mary and Barbara - if their last names are mentioned in the book, it's not frequently) are invited to a tour of the Walden Two commune by Frazier, a former university lecturer and colleague of Burris.

Walden Two is not a religious commune; instead its principles are scientific management, experimentation, and (Skinner's!) radical behaviorism. Skinner acknowledges the waste inherent in making women do unpaid, low-productivity work for the benefit of their families, and (very modern) makes child care a shared and remunerated obligation for the entire commune. There is a great belief in the idea that educated, smart managers can optimize and simplify any process - "managers" hadn't yet acquired their reputation as unimaginative administrators and supervisors.

The behaviorist aspects of the colony are present throughout the book. The main character notices he has completely lost the desire to smoke, which is hinted at to be the benign influence of the environment he's in. But in the last few pages, as the discussion between commune architect Frazier and philosopher Castle heats up, it becomes clear what Skinner intended with the book; a response to the specter of totalitarianism that had plunged the world into war.

The question he asks is: are humans destined to spend their lives as unhappy, overworked consumers, ready pickings for the next demagogue who can push the right buttons? And his answer is that humans can - consciously - take control of their own environment, and using that control, can condition themselves to be happy, prosocial beings who can deal fairly with others.

Skinner makes his characters talk extensively about whether such self-conditioning constitutes totalitarian control, and he's even-handed enough to make one of the characters walk away in disgust.

I'm not sure that Skinner's prescriptions would've worked out - the Twin Oaks community has survived for decades, but they broke with his system, and it certainly hasn't thrived and expanded in the way that he predicted - but his description modern society as creating isolated, advertising-dominated individuals who are ready pickings for the next totalitarian demagogue feels disturbingly timely.

The Dutch edition I read opens with a warning by the translator. "Bookchin's least likeable aspect was his taste for polemics." , and this turns out to be true for the book as well. Bookchin is very good at articulating the things that are wrong with other people's positions, and it seems that he is the most critical of people who mostly agree with him, or worse, agree with him for the wrong reasons.

The book also spends a lot of pages on an analysis of human society and its forms dating back to pre-history. The author may have felt that this justified his vision of society, but the overview lacks both the entertaining tone of a popular science writer, and the rigor and references you might expect in a scientific text.

Bookchin was highly aware of intersectional social justice issues, and in that sense his writing has aged well.

If I can try to summarize his ideas, Bookchin seems to dislike determinism, both in its biological and historical forms. Human beings are more complicated than their biological instincts, and our present society isn't the inevitable evolutionary victor it's sometimes made out to be.

This leads to his recommendations for how a society should be run: small communities, goverened as direct democracies, who try to close their own ecological balance, and interact with the rest of the world in a confederal system.

I wish the author had spent more time talking about the things he is for, rather than the things he is against.