As a "venture in utopia" the Israeli kibbutz has garnered a lot of attention. Scholars from as diverse fields as anthropology, psychology, and economics have wondered what its successes and failures can teach the non-kibbutz world. Kibbutzniks have studied their own community for the sake of the community itself, questioning their ideology and addressing their future. The test of any utopia is whether its ideology works in practice. In 1949--thirty-nine years after the establishment of Degania, the first kibbutz--Martin Buber described the kibbutz as "an experiment that did not fail." 1 He also remarked that "much still has to be done" to call it a success. 2

In the nearly fifty years since Buber made this oft-quoted proclamation, this community which is unique to Israel has proven itself as an established institution. Whereas most communes and similar ventures have disappeared by the second or third generation, some kibbutzim are already thriving on a fourth. In 1992 there were 269 kibbuzim ranging in population from below 200 to over one thousand. 3 Geography texts used in American schools talk about this "collective farm" which accounts for only three percent of Israel's total population but is the source of much of the country's agriculture. Standards of living are high compared to the rest of the country and higher education is almost universally provided. An exceptional number of kibbutz members have held national political offices. Yet laborers are being hired, children are leaving, and success as a utopia remains elusive.

It would be appropriate to begin a discussion of the success of the kibbutz with a definition of the movement's ideology, but there is no one definition. There was never even one unified movement.

The origins of the kibbutz and the kibbutz movements and federations have been interpreted differently by many people over the years. Was the first kibbutz an ideological or a pragmatic creation? Joseph Bussel, one of the founders of Degania, described some of their ideological goals in 1910: "Our ideal should be not to create an agricultural proletariat, but to develop an element of farm workers, whether they work for themselves or for others....I mean a system which will truly give the worker ideological freedom, without his having to exploit the work of others." 4 Yet in 1919 Bussel also acknowledged pragmatic motivation: "I perceive that, in the last resort, the kvutza is the only way which can enable us to conquer agriculture."5 It seems that both ideology and pragmatism played important roles in Degania's beginnings, but that does not automatically apply to later kibbutzim. Pioneering youth movements scattered through Europe spawned numerous settlements in the land then called Palestine, most not directly modeled on Degania. Kibbutz federations formed and later divided over ideological issues. There is not space here to discuss the specifics, but it is probably safe to say that the creation of individual kibbutzim and their movements and later federations was probably shaped by a combination of ideology and pragmatism.

A few ideals characterized all the secular kibbutzim. 6 The most basic ideals included "from each according to his abilities, and to each according to his needs" and equality. These were generally demonstrated through communally-owned property, a shared dining room, joint raising of children, rotation of jobs, and the contribution of every member to the support of the kibbutz as a whole.

Kibbutzniks have struggled throughout their history with the conflict between ideals and reality. Major concerns have included the hiring of labor, abolishment of a separate children's' house for sleeping, and the installation of private cooking facilities. Each of these has met with substantial debate and occasionally with the permanent division of a kibbutz. An issue which has not been given this attention within the kibbutz--despite a lot of outside research--is the role of the woman. Perhaps this is the proverbial elephant in the living room because it addresses such a central element of the ideology to which every secular kibbutz subscribes. Is there really equality on the kibbutz? Exploration of this issue and its implications can offer insight into the history and future of the constant kibbutz struggle with ideology and reality.

This paper will begin by exploring the history of the women's role on the kibbutz, the conclusions of various researchers, and the changing public perception and understanding of the issue. It will next talk about the concept of an ill-structured problem in general and in terms of the kibbutz as a whole, because only with the recognition of the interconnectedness of all aspects of kibbutz life can any one problem be solved. Finally it will propose and discuss a few potential solutions, explaining their pitfalls and asking more questions.