Re: Homogeneity v. Neighborhoods
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

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.