Re: Homogeneity v. Neighborhoods | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Legal-All Lawyers (Salleyvolpe1.dot.gov) | |
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 15:14:06 -0500 |
---------- From: cohousing-l Subject: Re: Homogeneity v. Neighborhoods Date: Wednesday, October 18, 1995 4:37AM I've tried to keep out of this, but it goes on and on with a few names dominating the discourse, so despite my good intentions to use the site for practical info only, herewith my feelings.... "HOMOGENIZE" - To make Uniform I am distressed to hear from so many people in the coho movement who feel they cannot live in a community with people who do not share their "spiritual" or political or other preferences. I recently visited Florida and New Mexico where I was shocked to see the proliferation of walled-compounds, designed to make "us" feel comfortable and to keep "them" out. The rationalization for these private enclaves was that it encourages a "feeling of community." Where does this lead? I have visions of Balkanization of the country. "NEIGHBOR" (1) One who lives near another (2) a fellow human being I lived for many years in a dense urban neighborhood where "everybody knew your name." People with widely differing political views, ethnic origins, economic status and abilities got along, watched each others' kids, helped in building projects, and congregated on stoops, glass in hand, to shoot the breeze. Holidays were a moveable feast and snow storms a local carnival. Yes, of course, there were neighbots who were "difficult" in some way - but what family doesn't have those? Rural villages and small towns used to be like this too - before Village came to mean an exclusive suburban development. Intentional communities of like-minded people that close out those who are different have obvious advantages, but I hope that's not what cohousing means. So, yes, cohousers must agree on public behaviour, commit to participation in the "commonweal," and demand civility and mutual respect - undoubtedly abiding friendships will develop. But once you start testing for personal and political beliefs you are moving into the area of intentional communities - wonderful in their own way, perhaps, but different from my conception of cohousing as a very close neightborhood. Heaven save me from comfortable homogeneity! "STEREOTYPE" One who is thought to conform to an unvarying pattern. The group I belong to is primarily (but not entirely I'm glad to say) liberal/professional/academic/intellectual/artistic/ - as you would expect in a college town. Some of us are also active members of various religious denominations. Yes, Virginia, contrary to popular belief, there is an intellectual and religious left! This has been a non-issue, because no one tries to impose their spiritual belief on another. I hope in due course we will learn from each other and grow to appreciate both our differences and our similarities. In this connection, while in favor of the ecumenical movement, I would find it a bit offensive to have snippets of my religious heritage homogenized into a "one size fits all" ceremony. Rituals are important but they don't need to be religiously based to have meaning. We will certainly have rituals but they will be secular and inclusive - after all I have my red card! Now back to lurking and asking practical questions. Rowena Conkling (These were the opinions of the author alone) Address: Salley [at] volpe1.dot.gov
-
Re: Homogeneity v. Neighborhoods Legal-All Lawyers, October 18 1995
- Re: Homogeneity v. Neighborhoods Shava Nerad, October 18 1995
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.