Cohousing-L Mailing List: RE: Should individual "sponsorship" be allowed of community

[Sue Pniewski (SPniewski]

I understand what you are saying, but I guess what I don't understand is:
The things in your hypothetical story:

>What I would object to is that other projects would be left undone. If, for
>instance, everyone also wanted an arbor for shade, but there was nobody
>willing to pay for it out of pocket, and the three poorest families really
>wanted it, it would still not get done. Those three families did not get
>what was really important to them, because the group never prioritized it,
>and they don't have the resources to gift it to the community.

What I don't understand is that if nobody donated things, the poorer people
still wouldn't get their arbor.  So what's the difference?  Either way they
don't get the arbor, but at least they get a hot tub.  Something is better
than nothing, but I guess the neighbors who were going to gift the hot tub
could just put it in their backyard instead, thereby making everybody
beholden to them every time they came over to "borrow" it.  We have gifting
all the time in my community, which is more closely knit than cohousing per
se, and everybody recognises that a gift is a gesture, it doesn't give
anybody more power or less compassion, we all understand that I might be
afford to buy the big screen TV, but I sure don't have time to mow the lawn
an extra time.  My gift is no more valuable just becasue some corporation
has attached a price tag, than the gift of another member of homemade dolls
for the children, who spent 20 hours working on her beautiful creation.
(which, BTW, were immensely popular for a while with some members, but
others enjoyed more the TV)
In my mind the giving of a gift shows caring and love for the receivers, and
the acceptance of said gift both honors and responds with love to the
givers.

-------------------------------------
Susan Pniewski, Esq.


-----Original Message-----
From: Elizabeth Stevenson [mailto:tamgoddess [at] comcast.net]
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 3:19 PM
To: cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org
Subject: Re: [C-L]_Should individual "sponsorship" be allowed of
community



Racheli wrote:
> Hi Liz,
> I guess I'm not sure at this point what "equality" you are
> talking about.

It's a subtle thing, to be sure. I'm talking about a situation where, over
time, a community acquires a number of things and completes a number of
projects, both necessary, and optional but desirable. Over time, this same
community does NOT complete a number of other projects, all of which it has
been agreed are desirable. The difference in what gets accomplished over
time is that in this particular fictional community, many of the projects
that were purchased or completed were "gifts" from a member or members of
the community who decided to not wait for these items to come up to number
one on the list of prioritized items.

In this way, the members of the community who have more money have more say
over what gets accomplished. It doesn't mean that those with less money are
ostracized or guilty or anything else except enjoying the gifts as they were
meant to be enjoyed. It does mean, however,  that their own preferences were
given less weight than those of the people with more money.

I'm not sure why you've brought this whole guilt/shame angle into the
conversation at all, Racheli. I feel that people are bringing a lot of
cultural baggage into this discussion that is unnecessarily demeaning about
poor people. I know of nobody in my community who is ashamed of being poorer
than anyone else here.

Let's say a community has decided they want a hot tub. Many people in
Southside Park Cohousing would like one, me included. But it's the sort of
thing that people who are afraid to spend money really don't like buying, so
it gets put down the list every year. If a group got together and purchased
a hot tub, we'd all love the hot tub in and of itself. I'd be in it right
now, instead of tediously explaining this over and over again.

What I would object to is that other projects would be left undone. If, for
instance, everyone also wanted an arbor for shade, but there was nobody
willing to pay for it out of pocket, and the three poorest families really
wanted it, it would still not get done. Those three families did not get
what was really important to them, because the group never prioritized it,
and they don't have the resources to gift it to the community.

Suppose that, eventually, those three families leave the community. They
just never felt that they fit in, and that their needs weren't being met.
They never told the community that this is how they felt, because they
didn't really understand why themselves. But the truth is, they didn't feel
as if their opinions mattered as much as others' did. It's not
hit-one-over-the-head obvious. It's the chilling effect of subtle
discrimination. 

I'd love to give you specific real examples, but I can't. Our community
doesn't buy things in this way, so I don't know for certain what the results
would be. All I know is that it's unfair. If everyone in every other
cohousing group wants to allow large gifts from members of the community,
then that is their choice.

-- 
Liz Stevenson
Southside Park Cohousing
Sacramento, California
tamgoddess [at] comcast.net

_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L
_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L