Spencer’s reading gives a brief overview of the Oneida Society. The society lasted from 1848 till 1879 in upper New York State and consisted of over 300 Christian Communities. Their leader and founder was John Humphrey Noyes, who was regarded as being the anointed leader chosen directly by God (largely self-exclaimed by Noyes). The community was a commune, their most radical concept being “complex marriage,” which was a marriage of every man and women in the community. Men and women were encouraged to be with many partners in the community and in some cases obligated. There was an obligation for young members of the community to have sexual relations with older members of the community for “spiritual development.” Where this many seem like sexual freedom, it actually was not. Marriage can be viewed as a limitation on sexual freedom by only having sex with one person, but the Oneida Society was the other extreme, people were discouraged from being with only one person. The community was directly involved in the sex life of community members, often directly by Noyes. If a couple wanted a monogamous relationship because they fell in love, then were criticized by the community and could have been disbanded. Many of the concerns in the later years, closer to disbandment had to do with issues of members no longer wanted their sex lives regulated by Noyes or anyone else. Such as the Protestant movement wanting sexual freedom from the Catholic Church. The lack of privacy in many other aspects of life in the Oneida communities such as intellectual freedoms and even small signs of individual ambition were discouraged. This whole community was an experiment set up by Noyes, who seemed to bend the community to his sexual and intellectual wills through sessions of “mutual criticism,” where community outliers would be several criticized in an effort to realign the individual with community values and ideals.
I can see the benefit to women, who would experience increased sexual and economic freedom in the Oneida Society compared to other communities in the nineteenth century. Also, the concepts of people regularly changing jobs to prevent boredom and increase happiness and old people choosing to work as much or as little as they wanted, largely being taken care of the community were positive.
Where I draw serious problems with the Oneida Society is in Theological justification and the stifling of individual ambition. I do not see where Noyes would draw justification from the Bible (specifically the New Testament) for the type of sexual behavior that was carried out in the Oneida Society. Moreover, to specifically argue against marriage within a Christian community, which has Biblical justification as an important union between a man and women under God seems paradoxical. The communal style of living solves some issues of selfishness and individual greed, but it also limits individual ambitions that result in great works of literature, art, or technology. If one is constantly criticized for stepping slightly outside group ambitions, firstly, they do not have the ability to exercise freedom, and secondly, the group will be less likely to advance. The idea of individual ambition is to advance oneself and be recognized, but it also to bring something new and ambitious to society. Without that, you have a complete group ideology that can keep a society stagnant for a longer period of time.
So, the Oneida Society was too extreme in its communal manner, driven ironically by the individual intentions of Noyes that was self-proclaimed leader appointed by God.