Re: If it religion it ain't cohousing, NOT!
From: Dspreitzer (Dspreitzereworld.com)
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 14:17:08 -0500
Gary, the original author of this thread writes: "I meant that if a group
builds a community based on one belief and does not
promote diversity, it is my opinion that it is no longer cohousing. It's
intensional community, yes."

While I, for one, would not be an advocate of a cohousing group excluding
folks on the basis of religion, in my book this alone does not deny them the
option of calling themselves cohousing if they have a common house, and all
the other "base model" components of cohousing.  Nowhere in my research and
understanding of cohousing have I found it to be synonymous with diversity.

Having been a resident of N Street Cohousing for over 6 years, I can say that
the diversity word has been popular.  We even had a diversity committee for
some time.  I also know that when it came down to it, most of us were
comfortable living and cohousing with people who shared similar philosophical
beliefs (note, I did not say spiritual beliefs).  I fully believe that it is
far easier to build and live in a cohousing community if people have things
in common.  I'm not saying that it won't work if they don't, but it's a hell
of a lot easier to achieve a genuine sense of community if they do.

Gary further writes:  "I feel to have true cohousing there must an openness
and tolorence to anyone who wishes to be in community."   In my liberal
heart, I wish this were the case, but I know that it takes a whole lot more
than a willingness to "be in community" to make cohousing work.  Not everyone
would find a comfortable niche in every cohousing community, nor do I think
they should.   I think it's too idealistic to say that "everyone is welcome
to live here."  I'm sorry, but I do not have to feel neighborly to say, a
child pornography photographer, or some other person that says they want to
live in cohousing but really doesn't belong.

Gary concludes by stating, "if religious lables start attaching themselves to
cohousing we're in deep shit."  I agree, but I don't think the inclusion of
one Mennonite community would cause the downfall of the movement, just like I
don't think talk or inclusion of Eco-villages on this list does us any harm.
 If one out of say 25 cohousing communities is religious based (especially if
many different kinds of religions are represented), there are still a great
majority that are mainstream and secular and outsiders will see this.
 Actually, including groups that have a particular focus under the cohousing
umbrella seems to do more for the diversity of the movement than just
promoting diversity "within" groups.

I agree with lots of what's been posted lately about "base model" cohousing.
 I think it is important for the movement to build a reputation that is
acceptable to the mainstream.  But this certainly doesn't mean that
individuals or groups who want to start a cohousing community with a certain
focus (say religious based, or retirement-age based) should stand back and
wait until cohousing is available to the mainstream masses.  Like anything,
there will always be examples that vary from the norm.  Down the road, I see
the  cohousing movement resembling a bell shaped curve:  Most of the
communities housing "mainstreamers," while off to both the left and right are
communties that are more more selective in their goals and philosophies.

Missing cohousing and searching for community in Toronto,
Donna Spreitzer

  • (no other messages in thread)

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.