The Rainbow Gathering

In a comparatively in-depth ethnography, Michael Niman (1997)28 portrays the Rainbow Family, Nation or Tribe as a 'revitalization movement' (of, now, global proportions) which attempts to realise a 'utopian libertarian-anarchist vision' at Rainbow Gatherings (or just 'Gatherings'). 'The Family' is described as an 'intentional group', indeed 'the largest utopian community in America' (Niman 1997:31). Yet, 'the Family' is also an 'occasional group' (ibid:112), or 'band society' which dissolves and regroups while maintaining 'a cohesive identity' (ibid:201). Since there are now many regional North American as well as global Gatherings, there is today, at any given time, 'at least one Rainbow Gathering taking place somewhere in the world' (ibid:33) - a circumstance which, according to Niman, renders 'the Family' a community with an element of permanence. The Rainbow Family possesses an open membership, Gathering attendees automatically qualifying as Rainbows. The invitation encourages people of diverse backgrounds (e.g. middle class kids, Dead Heads,29 war veterans and hobos) and spiritual affiliations to live in peaceful co-existence - a 'multispiritual utopia' (ibid:146). Indeed, with sixties peace activists and Vietnam War veterans forming the core of the first Gatherings, it is grounded in a tolerance for diversity. It is further argued that 'the Family' are a 'cooperative community of individualists' (ibid:70), their Gatherings expressing a 'commitment both to communalism and to individual liberty' (ibid:213). With 'no central organization to be subverted or destroyed', Niman describes how they have survived media misrepresentation and persistent harassment and persecution by the government (ibid:201-2).

Niman's account is grounded in a proximate, first-hand understanding of his subject matter. A long term member of the Rainbow Family with years of experience - and conducting 49 interviews between 1990-94 (Niman 1997:262-3) - he provides a thick description of the Gatherings. Such immersion justifies a departure from conventional ethnography, which is demonstrated by the opening chapter, 'Sunflower's Day' - described as 'a piece of ethnographic fiction'.30

However, while Rainbow Gatherings are public events, albeit of a peculiar kind, a discounting of the potency of socio-cultural theory31 on such events reveals an analytical deficiency in Niman's approach. Not festivals or celebrations, Gatherings are regarded as 'communities', and comparative analysis is restricted to 'utopian communities'. While this may account for inattention to comparable events and marginal people's worldwide (such as Britain's free festival circuit and new travellers), and the avoidance of other temporary seasonal events, I find it curious that the salient concepts of 'community' or 'communitas', as these have been employed by anthropologists and sociologists (e.g. Anderson 1983; Cohen 1985; Turner 1974), have been overlooked. In addition to this, while Niman regards the Rainbow Family as a 'movement', indeed a 'revitalization movement', no attempt is made to explicate this via social movement theory. Yet, overlooking Turner proves especially noticeable for, of the four events discussed here, Gatherings most approximate the sacred redress and spontaneous communality of the limen. It is almost as if Rainbow Gatherings are of such divine character that they cannot be made heuristically renderable.

< BACK

NEXT >