RE: Cohousing vs Communes / Affordable / Seattle? | <– Date –> <– Thread –> |
From: Rob Sandelin (floriferousmsn.com) | |
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 22:11:03 -0600 (MDT) |
There are cohousing groups which are based upon a particular religious doctrine, one established Mennonite group that I know of, and a forming Jewish Cohousing group is still underway as far as I know of. So I am not sure that cohousing is by definition is ideology free. There was a Christian based cohousing group in Texas at one point, not sure if they built or not. Needless to say, these religious-based cohousing groups have been soundly rejected by some of the folks in the cohousing movement, but that does not keep them from being cohousing. In one case, it just made them drop off any contact with cohousing organizer types. The primary difference between communes and cohousing in my estimation is economic. Communes are setup so that all the primary resources are owned by the group, whereas cohousing some of the resources are group owned, the housing is privately owned. Communes are group financed, Cohousing is bank financed (Mortgaged). Cohousing is centrally planned construction, communes are not generally so planned (but there are a few). Income is typically a group resource in a commune, not so in cohousing. Besides these differences there are many similularities in function and process. Some people from both sides, communes and cohousing, are uncomfortable having things in common, and I have personally experienced this discomfort in both settings. There are still lots of communes about, but few large ones in the US anymore. In fact, Cohousing seems to be the growth of the communities movement, and seems to make up the majority of the communities formed greater than 12 households in the past decade. Rob Sandelin Once up a time community traveler Resident 12 years Sharingwood -----Original Message----- From: cohousing-l-admin [at] cohousing.org [mailto:cohousing-l-admin [at] cohousing.org]On Behalf Of Forbes Jan Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2002 5:56 PM To: 'cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org' Subject: RE: [C-L]_Cohousing vs Communes / Affordable / Seattle? Dear Kay and others Thanks for this detailed and thoughtful response. I'm sticking my neck out here too, drawing on rough impressions, hoping I don't touch too many raw nerves. There are many different forms of communes and some may be closed communities, exclusive to particular groups with certain ideological beliefs. However even in communes some ideological beliefs are inclusive rather than exclusive e.g. Quaker and Rudolph Steiner communities. Ironically, you say communes tend to be ideologically driven and then you go on to elaborate about cohousing ideology. :-) Cohousing is ideologically driven or at least many of the early bofaellesskaber in Denmark were. While many cohousing communities were started by left wing environmentalists, they have evolved into inclusive communities that do not exclude people on the basis of religious or political beliefs. As you say, right wing people (and maybe people whose religion is other than Christianity) also live in cohousing because they value community and care for the environment. Cohousing communities have their own design features that have evolved over time and that set them aside from communes. The ideology of cohousing appears to include valuing environmental sustainability, community and inclusiveness. Also cohousing has its own history and influences, that draw on but are distinct from communes. The main difference between cohousing and communes is in the design. Communes, particularly as they were conceived in the 1960's and 70's, are based on households (pods or cells) comprised of single cells(bed sitters really)and shared common areas under the one roof rather than separate private households based for the most part on kinship. However, for all I know there may be groups with cohousing design features that identify as communes. Also, even within the commune design (Svanholme for example) it is possible for nuclear family groups to choose to live together in one pod if that is their choice. While cohousing and most communes differ, cohousing is undeniably a form of communal living, an unpopular idea because of the connotations of the term commune. There is a clear link and some overlap. Perhaps when the definition is unclear, a good approach is to let communities decide for themselves whether they identify as either as a cohousing or a commune. Another cohousing ideology after all is letting people have their say and respecting their personal choices about how they live their lives. The common meal, important as it is to many communities, is not essential to cohousing. There are other shared activities that are also community building. Seniors only cohousing in Denmark on the whole do not have the common meal. Many people in age-integrated cohousing would not see these as true cohousing. But then how many have actually experienced what they are like? By their own definition, these communites are cohousing. If we adhere to the cohousing principle of inclusiveness these seniors only groups are cohousing. Different interpretations will cause cohousing to evolve and change over time. The strength is that by adapting to changing circumstances it is unlikely to become outdated. It may even evolve a completely different identity, just as cohousing has a different identity from communes. Jan Forbes Hobart, Tasmania -----Original Message----- From: Kay Argyle [mailto:argyle [at] mines.utah.edu] Sent: Tuesday, 15 October 2002 7:19 PM To: cohousing-L Subject: Re: [C-L]_Cohousing vs Communes / Affordable / Seattle? > ... the subject of communes / co-housing > came up in school today. I couldn't really explain the difference - any > comments out there? > Irene Stupka Nobody else has responded, so I will. Despite my lack of qualification to say anything whatsoever about communes. Check the archives, other people have addressed the question previously. My impression (strictly my impression) is that communes tend to be ideologically driven, and one of the ideologies frequently involves income-sharing. Cohousing isn't, and doesn't. The elements of cohousing, as defined by Chuck Durrett & Katie McCamant, who invented the word as a translation for the Danish term, are * common facilities, * neighborhood design, * private dwellings, * participatory process, & * resident management. In other words, resident interaction is encouraged but not mandatory, and the community is run by the people who live there. (Interestingly, common meals, which play such a large role in so many communities, are not part of the definition.) That's it. No other ideology required. That doesn't mean other ideologies don't get unpacked before the moving van is out of the parking lot. People who think interacting with neighbors is a Good Thing and who believe in really, really, really local government (you can't get much more local than fifty feet down the path) frequently share other, usually liberal, baggage in common. Common facilities lend themselves to other goals, from shared recycling bins, to a community-run business (which can blur the line into income-sharing). However, you'll find people attracted to cohousing for whom being environmentally conscientious is tossing their aluminum cans in the dumpster instead of out the car window. People who agree with Heinlein that an armed society is a polite society. Who will show you the tattoo on their behind before they'll show you their income tax return. I even hear rumors about cohousers who vote Republican ;). Occasionally people assume that because they hold values A and B, which mesh neatly together, and other people hold value A, those people must also hold value B -- it's a "community value." And if those people don't hold value B, they can't be very committed to value A. This can be a real test of a community's commitment to diversity. If it's handled badly, you get accusations that some neighbor "doesn't belong" in cohousing (been there). -- Of course, a commitment to diversity is one of those extra baggage things, that since for me it goes with cohousing like peanut butter with jelly, I assume of course it does for everybody else too .... Kay argyle [at] mines.utah.edu *:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:*'``'*:-.,_,.-:* _______________________________________________ Cohousing-L mailing list Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org Unsubscribe and other info: http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l _______________________________________________ Cohousing-L mailing list Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org Unsubscribe and other info: http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.332 / Virus Database: 186 - Release Date: 3/6/02 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.332 / Virus Database: 186 - Release Date: 3/6/02 _______________________________________________ Cohousing-L mailing list Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org Unsubscribe and other info: http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l
-
Cohousing vs Communes / Affordable / Seattle? Fred H Olson, October 10 2002
-
Re: Cohousing vs Communes / Affordable / Seattle? Kay Argyle, October 15 2002
- Re: Cohousing vs Communes / Affordable / Seattle? Sharon Villines, October 15 2002
-
RE: Cohousing vs Communes / Affordable / Seattle? Forbes Jan, October 15 2002
- RE: Cohousing vs Communes / Affordable / Seattle? Rob Sandelin, October 15 2002
-
Re: Cohousing vs Communes / Affordable / Seattle? Kay Argyle, October 15 2002
Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.