Re: "What is (or isn't) cohousing" revisited. | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Shava Nerad (shavanetwork-services.uoregon.edu) | |
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 13:42:27 -0500 |
Joani sez: > But there are certain things that clearly set > cohousing (yes, Rob, all three models) aside from other kinds of shared > living. They all fall into the area of adequate privacy. This is why our project (currently moribund while one activist graduates from law school and another (me!) starts her own company) was based on the coho model. A few of us are cooperative housing "scarred veterans," and we see coho models as a perfect compromise between the coop/communal living situation, and the isolated nuclear housing of the greater society. Problems with coop living avoided by coho reflect Joani's advantage list. - people with different cleanliness threshholds I don't mean people who are total slobs, but the division between folks who wash the dishes immediately, and the folks who want to sit and digest first. Or the people who know how to keep a wok seasoned, and the people who want to soak it to get the teriyaki sauce off... Or the people who believe that a bathroom must be totally cleaned every 3 days, and the ones who want to wait for a ring in the toilet. Or,... - quiet space for work one of the major problems I've run into is that "the computer room" or "the crafts room" can't be set up so that people playing and people working can be segregated. For those of us who work at home, this is a serious problem! - contextualization for kid raising I like a certain amount of separate authority for parents, within the community "village" model. This is much harder when kids have no physical daily context to separate "this is how we handle it, no matter how xxx's parents handle it." - well defined rules for money a source of breakdown for many coops. What happens when a member loses a job? What about the person who abuses the safety net? If one person eats out a lot, how do you charge a share of food? Most of us were raised, in this culture, to expect a certain amount of autonomy. In nuclear (or even extended) families, we were imprinted with ideas about boundaries in terms of all of these issues -- and we believed (usually) that what we think of as "right" or "normal" on these issues, *is* "right" or "normal." To quote Robert Frost: "Good fences make good neighbors." In this case, it's the boundary conditions that generate the most interest in community. I believe that defining boundaries is the essence of defining commonalities and community. Many coop/communal living situations deny this, with a sort of PC orthodoxy that I find un-useful and often obnoxious. > I'd be interested in the ideas of other people about what makes (especially > "classic") cohousing different from other forms of shared living. I don't > mean to be divisive by making this inquiry; I value diversity among shared > living communities as much as I value it within any community I would want > to live in. And boundaries help preserve diversity. It's the "fruit salad" vs. "melting pot" model. I don't want to be totally assimilated into a PC community standard. I want to live with folks who can work together despite inevitable differences. As a younger woman, I thought those sorts of differences could be compromised without alienating the individual and harming the sense of community. I'm a more pragmatic idealist, now. Hope I get a good chance to test my theories! ;) Shava
-
"What is (or isn't) cohousing" revisited. Joani Blank, April 25 1996
- Re: "What is (or isn't) cohousing" revisited. Shava Nerad, April 26 1996
- Re: "What is (or isn't) cohousing" revisited. MelaSilva, April 29 1996
- RE: "What is (or isn't) cohousing" revisited. Rob Sandelin (Exchange), April 29 1996
- RE: "What is (or isn't) cohousing" revisited. Bruce Koller, July 29 1996
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.