By Antonieta Costa
Foreword
This essay on democracy, revised by Perplexity for clarity, coherence, grammar, and academic tone, preserves Antonieta Costa’s original arguments and research findings. Like her other works on the Brotherhoods of the Holy Spirit (Azores, Portugal), this paper addresses crucial issues concerning the nature of democracy, particularly the origins of power within democratic systems. Maps of Democracy recognizes this important contribution as an essential element in the ongoing discussion about the future of democracy.
António Cerveira Pinto
1. Introduction
Power presents a fundamental challenge: it permeates all social processes, thoughts, and relationships. Even the simplest interactions become arenas of contestation, where participants vie to establish “truth” regarding the reality under discussion.
Traditionally, “power”—as authority in the construction of symbolic reality—is conferred by the group to select individuals. These figures (scientists, priests, shamans, legislators, etc.) are legitimized as the official creators or constructors of reality, depending on societal context and development.
Nevertheless, those excluded from power continually generate commotion, leading to covert struggles for residual authority and recognition, often masked by superficial calm.
In either scenario, establishing “truth” invariably depends on a superordinate entity—the final arbiter, the authority that grants moral legitimacy—within a hierarchical system to which individuals appeal to “learn” proper order, behavior, and societal norms. Societies grounded in alternative principles seem inconceivable; the imposition of law and order is deemed inseparable from these authority figures. Any system founded on radically different logic is presumed doomed to fail. Thus, the idea of a society rooted in complete equality regarding the establishment of “truth” is typically dismissed as a utopian fantasy—unrealistic and unsustainable, though often longed for.
Focusing on the intersection of philosophy and epistemology, it is clear that power, as a theme, has remained stationary since early history—central to reality’s interpretation and construction. Access to “truth” has always been seen as bestowed via a “gift,” “divine concession,” “enlightenment,” or similar special dispensation, always entrusted to figures of authority—not common people.
To challenge this common conception, I present information on a religious organization (the Brotherhoods of the Holy Spirit) that operates under radically different principles—primarily symmetrical interactions among members. Here, all definitions of organizational reality, including representations of divinity, values, cult performance, and other functions, are produced collectively by ordinary members. Anyone may join, and as the “Imperador” (ritual leader for a week), may introduce innovations for improved community functioning.
Societies typically avoid such models, fearing loss of interpretative control and, consequently, the meaning and values attached to social realities. My curiosity about this unique case led me to study it during a doctoral program at ISCTE, Lisbon, in 1998, with the goal of presenting it to the scientific community.
2. The Problem
The Organization of the Holy Spirit (or the Brotherhoods) commands attention because it defies prevailing societal thought on power and social life in two ways: there is an almost complete absence of authority figures, and laws or norms are not established by authorities.
This singularity posed theoretical challenges for my research. Most social theory—particularly those addressing power—are structured by paradigms potentially distorting my perception. I avoided these for fear of misrepresenting the actual situation. Furthermore, the organization’s functioning contradicted established theory. Producing a controversial case unsupported by mainstream theory can be uncomfortable in academic settings.
Claude Faucheux and Serge Moscovici (1967) provide a rare exception. Their work on minority influence in reality construction challenges conventional “top-down” models, demonstrating that influence can also rise “bottom-up” from ordinary individuals. This less visible source often combats organizational stagnation, enabling change and imposing new order.
Despite controversy, Faucheux and Moscovici’s framework inspired many, including Ilya Prigogine (1985), who speculated that social interaction may mirror autonomous organization observable across nature—from stars to mosquitos.
Moscovici’s limited broader impact stems partly from the tenacious hold of traditional power paradigms and the questionable comparative use of animal and human societies—humans construct symbolic reality, requiring group-wide participation for true meaning.
My study sought to supplement Moscovici’s laboratory results (1976) with ethnographic evidence, hoping to show that recognizing minority influence in social reality construction offers valuable insights into social processes and the potential of democracy.
4. Empirical Data
My research began with the premise that all known religions restrict access to the sacred to initiates. I was interested in how the island’s population responded to the Organization of the Holy Spirit’s lack of authority figures. I designed questionnaires, using factor analysis to address this issue.
The initial study surveyed 25 villages (25 questionnaires per village, totaling 625), capturing variation by sex, age, social class, and geography. These variations illuminated the distribution of opinions—and thus different social interpretations of reality—across the island. The surveys explored the delegation of power in religious, ideological, and administrative functions. Results indicated that not only cult members (about 30,000, or 50% of the population), but also outsiders, accepted the following mean values (1=no, 5=yes):
- Factor 1: religious delegation = 3.20
- Factor 4: ideological delegation = 4.21
- Factor 5: administrative delegation = 4.12
Having confirmed that the island population shared similar views, I conducted a second study to explore conceptions of divinity (the former Catholic Holy Spirit). I sought evidence of deviation from the orthodox concept, indicating autonomous production free from Catholic control, and how this relationship—created only by ordinary members—functioned.
I analyzed 330 miracle stories from the tradition, conducting content analysis to identify dominant cult terms. Catholic priests and seminarians (N = 11) reviewed this list. Many terms were new; only one-third were identified as orthodox. Orthodox terms comprised less than half the references; 46% were innovative or new entities. Thus, I confirmed the Brotherhoods’ ideological autonomy from the Catholic Church.
Content analysis and factor analysis of these stories produced a structure of four main factors (explaining 42.25% of variation):
- Factor 1: personal control over survival = 14.3%
- Factor 2: social control over survival = 10.97%
- Factor 3: submission to God’s will = 8.59%
- Factor 4: punishment for infractions = 8.40%
These findings suggest that compared to Catholic tradition, the Brotherhood model provides greater perceived control over personal and environmental constraints. The diminishing factorial scale suggests punishment (factor 4) is relatively limited and potentially reversible. The relationship with the sacred thus centers on mastery over the environment, contrasting with a more conformist, fatalistic Catholic attitude.
The ideology arising solely from member interaction (without leaders or mentors), and thus “minorities” in Moscovici’s sense, appears more pragmatic than the orthodox Catholic model.
The third study examined cantadores (ritual singers) regularly hired for ceremonies. I sought their views on Imperadores’ actions and public reactions, hypothesizing that the organization used singers as “boundary spanning units” (Hodge & Anthony, 1979) for environmental feedback.
Content analysis of interviews showed public opinion (internally and externally) significantly influenced Imperadores’ actions during rituals, guiding the organization toward consensus through unexpected mechanisms.
Last, I studied the influence of brotherhood statutes and committees. Out of 62 committees, 57 participated (138 questionnaires). A latent conflict exists between bureaucratic and democratic logics. Factorial analysis revealed substantial dissent, but reaffirmed Imperador autonomy and denied external influence from other brotherhoods. Reality construction appeared to occur independently within each brotherhood; only within committees did hierarchical structures persist.
This situation reflects the clash of bureaucratic and democratic logics: organizational definitions were not set by authority or statutes (which only prescribe certain functions), and faced an alternative system—the bureaucratic model.
5. Conclusion
Although this research only scratches the surface of a complex system, four studies identified critical information about this unique way of functioning. The democratic concept resulting from the Brotherhoods’ praxis differs fundamentally from representative democracy—not just in procedures but in essence.
Two key distinctions deserve focus:
- Reality Construction: In the Brotherhoods, reality-making is a collective function requiring active participation from all members. Representative democracies, by contrast, distort the process by centralizing “truth” creation among a few individuals, which suppresses genuine expression and weakens social meaning. This model suggests participative approaches are viable—dispelling fears of chaos.
- Consensus: Whereas mainstream societies treat consensus as necessary, the Brotherhoods reject it. Here, difference is normalized; “truth” emerges from the blending of various perspectives while preserving logical coherence. Such tolerance exposes the contradictions in representative democracy and hints at new ways forward.
Ultimately, focus should remain on principles guiding member conduct and interaction—applicable to both models. When acting under political democracy, people respond to power representation, perpetuating authoritarian relations. Under “brotherhood democracy,” individual responsibility and equal involvement become standard, resulting in a stable and dynamic organization—absent authority for over 500 years.
Further research is warranted into the feasibility of total democracy. The absence of authority need not breed chaos; structures based on alternative logic are possible. Future studies should identify factors essential for functioning such systems.
One fundamental principle should guide future inquiry: social symbolic reality is always a group product. Meaning is generated through the exchange of ideas, each understood as both collective and individual in origin—without awarding primacy.
The principle that no one has authority to establish reality underpins the Brotherhoods, making them living utopias—laboratories of new order. Accordingly, Moscovici’s findings extend further: minorities (“common men”) not only effect change but can also create and sustain their own social order.
6. A Replication
6.1. Introduction
Following my 1998 Ph.D. thesis on the Brotherhoods of the Holy Spirit, critics argued that their egalitarian model was viable only as a religious anomaly. In 1999, however, I learned of a small community on Pico Island, Azores, purportedly living by similar principles for centuries. In April 2000, the University of Minho invited me to research this phenomenon.
6.2. The Situation
The Azores comprise nine Portuguese islands in the North Atlantic, between America and Europe. Discovered in the 1530s, they were settled by Portuguese and Flemish populations, with some islands donated to Flemish families.
Pico Island is part of the central group, dominated by its 2,351-meter peak. Santa Cruz das Ribeiras, my research site, is a small, isolated fishing village two to three hours on foot from Lajes, the main local town, referenced in early accounts by Frei Diogo das Chagas.
Initial settlers in Santa Cruz valued abundant water (“Ribeiras” means creeks). From the outset, they developed unique habits—extreme cleanliness persists as a local “vanity.” Today, outsiders regard Santa Cruz as a cohesive, industrious community. The village’s reputation for hospitality, food, and safety draws tourists.
Santa Cruz operates like a large family, sharing responsibilities and enjoying centuries of prosperity through mutual enterprise. Historical economic shifts compelled diversification, particularly in sea-based activities, fostering ties with America and Canada.
Despite centuries of isolation, villagers maintained a reputation for respectability and stability in sharp contrast to neighboring communities. Major social issues, including criminality and exploitation, are absent in Santa Cruz.
Villagers formed associations for collective benefit, including boat-building cooperatives and local social security, predating government programs. Today, Santa Cruz hosts the island’s largest festival facilities, booked months in advance.
6.3. The Problem and Objectives
One might expect an isolated group to develop traditional stratified structures around gender, age, status, or hostility toward outsiders (as suggested by Poirier et al., 1983). However, Santa Cruz appears to lack such differentiation—a fact driving my inquiry. I interviewed residents over 50 to profile the “old times” and stratification patterns.
My hypothesis was that social norms emerged without legitimate authorities, through symmetrical interaction, ingraining common values over time. If true, this would contradict the belief that economic pressures inevitably destroy equality.
6.4. The Sample
In 2000, Santa Cruz had 331 residents (162 men, 169 women); previously, populations exceeded 600. The first settlers may have been Flemish (like Terceira and Faial), possibly bringing utopian ideals prevalent in Flanders.
Recent emigration reduced the population, resulting in a demographic with over a third aged over 50. Consensus among older residents affirmed symmetrical relations and collective economic success.
6.4.1. Differentiation by Age and Sex
The study population included 95 people over 51 (43 men, 52 women), with the age distribution documented by the local school teacher.
6.4.2. Differentiation by Social Status
No one in Santa Cruz is considered “poor.” All own homes or plots for subsistence farming; most elderly live with family, contributing financially or through labor. Seven (one man, six women) live alone. The sample includes returnees from America/Canada (N=11), a fishing boat owner, three former teachers, four public servants, the rest retired fisherman (or their spouses) receiving pensions. No members possess significant fortunes, and residence does not reflect socioeconomic stratification; there are no “chic” or impoverished areas.
6.5. Theoretical Framework
The existence of a society based on equality in Santa Cruz challenges both scientific and common sense understanding, which regards such arrangements as utopian or unattainable.
Contrastingly, social stratification—via leadership, authority, and power—is viewed as essential for collective action (Weber, 1922; Parsons, 1963, etc.). This paradigm has dominated social science.
Faucheux and Moscovici (1967) offered a recent challenge, presenting egalitarian societies as a theoretical possibility underpinning democracy, albeit rarely realized.
Many have conflated such ideals with Tonnies’ “Gemeinschaft”—small-town, family-centered cultures. Yet, those societies are stratified; the utopian ideal concerns classes’ absence.
Pierre Bourdieu (1994:32) noted social classes as indicators of power struggles rather than clear realities. Practice and habitus expose social distinctions; the way people eat distinguishes employees from employers (1994:9). Echoing Bourdieu, Michel de Certeau (1980) advocated studying ordinary people through interviews and observation, inspired by Kant’s dictum that “some things can only be done, not taught.”
6.6. Methodology
Research aimed to detect social stratification in Santa Cruz using interviews, observations, and official records. Thirteen people (10% of the elderly population) participated, including four from Lajes as a control group. Subjects were asked to recall the past, addressing four categories: Virility, Authority of Elders, Status Inequality, and Hostility to Strangers. Interviews, following de Certeau’s style, incorporated these categories subtly into conversation.
Transcriptions and content analysis were performed by independent investigators to ensure objectivity. Texts were analyzed for indicators (positive, negative, or neutral) of social stratification in each category.
Subjects produced vivid accounts of the past, generally unanimous in their view of Santa Cruz’s egalitarian life—agreed upon even by the control group. This consensus emerged organically; though topics and styles varied, shared themes predominated.
6.7. Results
Table 2 (Santa Cruz) and Table 3 (Control Group) present reference frequencies, showing a predominance of the negative sign—absence of traditional stratification indicators. Neutral signs appeared where negativity might be expected, but overall, responses highlight stark differences between life in Santa Cruz and traditional societies.
The possibility that this horizontal, symmetrical society endured from the fifteenth through the twentieth centuries offers hope for democratic evolution.
Combined with the Brotherhoods of the Holy Spirit research, these results suggest the feasibility of such open structures merits further investigation. Understanding social interactions premised on equality could effect a shift in mentalities toward more satisfying social life—even as the population ages, the humane benefits are clear.
[Originally published in World Cultures Journal, Vol. 13, No.1, Spring 2002]
References Cited:
Bourdieu, P. (1994). Raisons pratiques: Sur la théorie de l’action. Paris: Édition du Seuil.
Certeau, M. de. (1980). L’invention du quotidien, arts de faire. Paris: Éditions Gallimard.
Faucheux, C., & Moscovici, S. (1960). Etudes sur la créativité des groupes II: Tâche, structure de communications et réussite. Bulletin du Centre d’Études et de Recherches Psychotechniques, 9, 11–22.
Faucheux, C., & Moscovici, S. (1967). O estílo de comportamento de uma minoria e a sua influência sobre as respostas de uma maioria. Bulletin du CERP, 16, 337–360.
Hodge, B., & Anthony, W. (1979). Organization theory: An environmental approach. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Hofstede, G. (1995). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill Publishing.
Marques-Teixeira, J. (1998). Tendência formativa e tendência atualizante: Reflexões à luz das teorias do caos e da complexidade. Psicologia, Revista da Associação Portuguesa de Psicologia, 11, 89–100.
Martin, J., & Meyerson, D. (1988). Organizational culture and the denial, channelling, and acknowledgement of ambiguity. In L. Pondy, R. Boland, & H. Thomas (Eds.), Managing ambiguity and change (pp. xx–xx). New York: John Wiley.
Moscovici, S. (1976). Psychologie des minorités actives. London: Academic Press.
Parsons, T. (1980). Social systems. In G. Salaman & K. Thompson (Eds.), Control and ideology (pp. xx–xx). Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Poirier, J., Clapier-Valladon, S., & Raybaut, P. (1983). Les récits de vie: Théorie et pratique. Paris: PUF.
Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1985). Order out of chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. London: Flamingo.
Tönnies, F., & Loomis, C. P. (Ed. & Trans.). (1957). Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft [Community and society]. New York: Harper & Row. (Original work published 1887)
Trice, H. M., & Beyer, J. M. (1993). The cultures of work organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Weber, M. (1922). The theory of social and economic organization. New York: Free Press.
Antonieta Costa (About/ Wikipédia)
Gabinete da Zona Classificada de Angra do Heroísmo, Rua do Galo, 86/92, 9700, Angra, Terceira, Azores, Portugal
antonieta_c@hotmail.com
c blog 