|Normative definitions of cohousing||<– Date –> <– Thread –>|
|From: Tim Behrend (t.behrendauckland.ac.nz)|
|Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1999 14:12:08 -0600|
At 10:29 PM 2/25/99 -0600, you wrote: >Needlessly inflexible? Perhaps. Or perhaps I'm just behind the times on >what the current definition of cohousing *is*! :-) I thought I saw somthing >posted here awhile ago by Katie Mccamant saying that cohousing should not >have a specific purpose behind it if it was to be called "cohousing." Or >maybe I just misinterpreted what she said. Anyway, I think it's a >worthwhile topic to be debated on the list--should cohousing be >idea-specific or not? I don't see any value in looking for a normative definition somewhere out there . . . certainly not from someone who happened to write a book about their perspective on a particular form of this lifestyle phenomenon. If there is a group of people seeking to build a greater sense of community into their lives that thinks that what they are doing is "cohousing", more power to them -- whether they are radical queer mormons who only drink jack daniels and want to use their retrofitted warehouse conversion to lead a recall vote on the salt lake city olympics or a bunch of people who have stumbled on a housing option that saves them some money and makes it easy to find babysitters. Whatever makes a particular group tick is good, I think, and we have no need to wind up our clock if one group's articulation of what they are doing is dramatically different from another's. Tim Behrend Auckland, New Zealand
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.