LITR 5439 Literary & Historical Utopias

 Research Posting 2009

Mallory Rogers

“In Oneida it wasn’t Love… it was Just Business”

I chose my topic for this research posting after an introduction to the Oneida community, via a web review.   Before the classroom presentation, I knew little about the Oneida community. After the overview of the community I wanted to learn more about their ways of life. I was aware of the fact they made silverware and flatware for everyday use as well as fine china, but other than the business aspect my knowledge about their ways of life was limited and virtually non-existent.    Oneida seemed to be a well rounded community, they didn’t seem do things perfectly but they did seem to appear better off than other intentional communities we have learned about. During the web review it was touched upon that the girls were married as young as fourteen while boys were considered young males until they were twenty-one.  This idea piqued my interest to want to explore more about Oneida’s reasoning and attitudes toward relationships and how the two affected the society as a whole.

According to www.NYhistory.com/Central/Oneida.com, Oneida’s beliefs were founded on ideas authored by John Humphry Noyes, who authored the first articles denouncing the institution of marriage.  These articles were published through a periodical titled “Battle Axe”.  The articles came as a result of Noyes’ wife, Abigail, leaving him for another man. “Battle Axe” proposed a resolution as to why marriage created problems.  Eventually, time healed Noyes’ battered heart.  He fell in love again, proposing that marriage could benefit the two persons equally.  As a result of this millennial event in Noyes life he lifted his denunciation of marriage and introduced a new concept to the Oneida community that would become the new foundational concept for marriage: the teachings of “complex marriages”.  

In the book, Complex Marriage, to Say the Least, David Reynolds offers an explanation regarding Oneida’s updated views about marriage.  He begins with the explanation of the theory that monogamy is a sin.  In order to get around this issue and be married simultaneously,   one must change partners 2-3 times a week under Noyes’ supervision.  Often, the new partners were younger (the pattern called for young teenagers to be paired with older partners ages 50-60 years old). To prevent pregnancy, males practiced a method referred to as “male continence”—intercourse without ejaculation.  Those who disregarded the monogamy or continence rules were reprimanded in public during group discussion meetings. Children born were reared by means of a group effort.  Married couples could request a child of their own, but the child would not be permitted to live with them. The new ideology was not flawless though.  The new beliefs had harmful outcomes including bouts of jealousy as well as possessive. These issues coupled with the fact that young members of the community began to voice their opposition to older partners who they viewed as less attractive than the men closer to their age eventually led to the demise of the “complex marriage” theory. 

After abandoning complex marriages, the Oneida community moved their focus to the establishment of profitable businesses.  The history disseminated below comes from Oneida’s silverware company, Oneida Company’s, official website www.Oneida.com. The Oneida community had a plethora of business ventures that included the production of canned fruits and vegetables; traps and chains; traveling bags and straw hats,; mop sticks; sewing silk and silver knives, forks, and spoons.  The flatware and dinner-ware company drew the most profitable business and thus became Oneida’s chief source of income.  The company produced and manufactured dinnerware as well as flatware in a wide variety of styles varying from classic to model styles.

An article titled Tarnished ran in the popular Forbes Magazine in 2004 chronicled the hardships that the Oneida Company faced from inception to present day. The article states that the silverware company came about in 1879, when the Oneida Community was on the outs.  Each member was given a share of the company in hopes of reuniting the community through a successful business.  After a few years, the business began to see a reduction in profits and as a result company executives and management took pay cuts (10% cut in 1914 and another during the Depression in 1914 that came to 1/3 of their total salary).  The Oneida Company remained dedicated to staying afloat, abandoning the simple solution of to their problem: laying workers off.  When Noyes’ nephew, chairman of the company, retired in 1967, the company went public. As outsiders and locals combined to run the once community-run business, money issues hit all-time highs.  It began when offers to buy stock for $15 more than it was going for were rejected.  Soon after, the new chief of Production added to issues noting the $30/hr worker salaries compared to those of China workers which were drastically lower at $2.50/hour plus lunch.  In 2000, the public influence won over the company and five factories were closed, saving $12 million dollars. Product selection was also reduced from 35,000 to 9,500 styles.  After September 11^th, the demand for products again reduced forcing the company to lay more workers off.  Eventually, machines were integrated into production so that the need for factory workers is now minimal.

The author of Tarnished states the effects of business on Oneida’s community best when he says that “the communal spirit [of Oneida] was no match for globalization.” Much like the financial crisis of today, a few people’s greed turned into hardships and trouble for hundreds and thousands of workers and their families.  With no income and the community that once stood strong now divided, the business operations were half to blame for Oneida’s ultimate demise.  The other faulty factor was Noyes’ influential denunciation on marriage and his introduction to the theory of “complex marriages”.  The two entities acted in a snowball effect to negatively affect the workings of Oneida’s society.  The theory of complex marriages is ultimately to blame, though.  When that theory didn’t work well for Oneida, relationships were essentially ousted and the community changed its focus to business.  As a business move, the Oneida Company went public which eventually failed too, much like the “complex marriage” theory.  The business hardships ruined the community’s founding spirit.  As a result of these two changes in society, The Oneida community would become merely a memory because its founding beliefs of marriage, communal empathy, and prosperity were dead.

Bibliography

“About the Community”.  2009. Oneida. 1 July 2009 [http://www.oneida.com/about-oneida_history-of-community/].

Reynolds, Davis S. "Complex Marriage to Say the Least." New York Times. 00287806 (24 October 1993) 1 July 2009. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=30581236&site=ehost-live>.

Schoenberger, Chana R.. "Tarnished." Forbes. 173.5 (15 March 2004) :  p80-81. 1 July 2009. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=12404435&site=ehost-live>.

The Oneida Community. 1996-2009. New York History Net.  July 1, 2009 [http://www.nyhistory.com/central/oneida.htm].