Cohousing-L Mailing List: rebuttal to Nancy Levant (was Re: Cohousing blog post of the day: 'Communist, sectors...American media-style')

[Ed Stauff (ed]

After reading the latest rant by Ms. Levant posted here, I couldn't 
stand it any longer, and sent her the following:

Dear Ms. Levant:

I'd like to address some of the claims you made in an article about 
cohousing, or "Communitarian communities" as you call them.  I realize 
they are a year old, but the article has only just come to my attention, 
and a more recent article by you suggests that your views haven't 
changed significantly since then.

> God knows you wouldn't want a democracy up and
> running in a community.

Consensus *is* a form of democracy.  Democracy means neither more nor 
less than "government by the people"; it does not mean "majority rules". 
 Consensus is not a form of government, it is a method of decision-making.

> And yet, Communitarian communities do, I've discovered, tend to 
appoint leaders for consensus gatherings.

Yes, of course.  Have you ever been in a meeting of more than a small 
handful of people, where the meeting didn't have some sort of leader, 
moderator, or facilitator?  In cohousing, meeting leaders derive their 
power, such as it is, from those they are TEMPORARILY leading, who can 
quickly and easily remove that power if they don't like the job the 
leader is doing.

> And the photographs that are posted on many of these websites are,
> frankly, strange. Hugely smiling people - too smiling, and far, far
> too happy. Let's face it. Life is stressed and strained, and you only
> see overly smiling faces on teeth bleaching commercials or pasted into
> the Christmas cards of the wealthy who somehow believe that toothy
> photos of themselves are holy season greetings.

Do you live such a horrible life that you find the notion of smiling to 
be so foreign?

> You will see smiling gardeners, smiling pedestrian walkway strollers,
> smiling dishwashers, smiling salad prep-ers - all smiling as if they'd
> won a super lotto. One might think that posing for the camera was a
> vision and mission of these communities.

What do you suggest we use for advertising, photos of people looking 
miserable?

> For along with the physical housing, one must agree to the
> 'vision' of the community in order to live in the community.

And how is this wrong?  What if it were a Christian community in which 
one must assert one's belief in the Bible?

> Please tell me how this is different from Jim Jones community in Guyana?

By the lack of a single, charismatic (and insane) leader who makes all 
the rules.  Such a thing is antithetical to cohousing.

> The bottom line and outcome for 'intentional housing'
> communities is social re-engineering, just as in any cult.

Social re-engineering?  Yes, for that portion of society that agrees 
with our vision.  Cult?  No.  A cult requires a single charismatic 
leader to whom all the cult members pay allegience.  Cohousing groups 
are not formed around such leaders.

> Your world, and how you see and live it, is to change as per the 
visionary wisdoms of 'the communit'

No, my world and how I see and live in it, will change as per the 
visionary wisdom of *ALL* the members of the community.  And unlike 
cults, if I choose to leave, nobody will try to kill me.

>  The true purposes of these new villages are three-fold:
>
>  1. Grow and implant the Communitarian governmental system and way of 
life

If by "communitarian governmental system" you mean a *true* democracy in 
which *all* the people have a direct hand in governing, rather than 
electing corrupt beaurocrats to supposedly represent them, then yes, 
that's what we're doing.

>  2. Eliminate Judeo-Christian foundations and ethics.

Do your homework.  There are Christian cohousing groups, though I 
recognize that they make up a small minority of all cohousing groups.

>  3. Cluster the masses.

What on earth does this mean?  Who are "the masses"?  Who are *not* the 
masses?

>  4. Eliminate private ownership of property.

I'm sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about.  In the vast 
majority of cohousing communities, group ownership applies to the land 
(just like a condominium), the common house, and certain other common 
facilities (workshops, tennis courts, etc.).  The living units 
(houses/apartments) and their contents remain private property.  I don't 
know of a cohouser who would submit to common ownership of everything. 
*I* certainly wouldn't!

>  They are closed social systems,

Incorrect.  Every cohousing community I've ever heard of makes a 
considerable effort, both before and after move-in, to reach out to the 
surrounding community and become a part of it.

> and consensus, based upon visioning
> or envisioning, has a name. That name is manipulation.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about.  Have you ever 
participated in a consensus decision-making process?

> The 'leaders'
> of Communitarian communities are trained facilitators

Yes: trained in things like how to keep a meeting on track, and how to 
recognize when a person is being excluded from the process.

> and frequently ex-military or law enforcement.

Can you back this claim up with data?  I very much doubt it.

> Training sessions teach students to take pre-conceived and
> pre-planned missions and present them to ordinary people or newcomers.
> Envisioning students are taught how to implant pre-planned missions
> into the minds of citizens, and to manipulate them into believing that
> they, themselves, have come up with those missions, and then
> envisioners actually tell people how to implement the mission.

If this is what "envisioning" is, then it's *NOT* consensus.

If you were to spend any significant time actually interacting with 
cohousers, you'd quickly discover that they are a bunch of 
individualists who actually *think* carefully about things.  Cohousers 
are not easily herded.  I was once part of a cohousing start-up in which 
the leader was eventually revealed to be the sort of manipulator you 
describe.  Most of the other members left in shock, grief and anger when 
this was discovered.  The group eventually bought land and built, but 
not before the leader left the group.  (This is the only case like it 
that I've heard of.)

>  We are being herded into 'communities' We are being socially and
> culturally re-engineered into controlled Communitarians.

Who is herding you?  I'm not.  If you don't want to be in cohousing, 
then don't.  Nobody will try to force you.  Cohousing is not for everyone.

> Also keep in mind that most communal living communities, including
> foster homes, group homes, senior group homes, public schools,
> prisons, and even assisted living systems are rampant with sexual and
> other physical abuses, intimidations of all kinds, mind control, theft
> of personal property, and fear.

Most of these communities you mention are not run by the residents. They 
are run by non-resident administrators of one sort or another, who have 
no personal stake in the community other than their paycheck, or perhaps 
the sort of perverted gratification that comes from having power over 
others.

> When the predominant housing trend in the United States is to place
> citizens inside of envisioned communities, most of which also having
> private security details called COPS (Community Oriented Police
> Services), which is administered through the Department of Justice,
> one worries about many things, and especially children who are being
> raised in and by these 'villages'

Once again, you don't know what you're talking about.  I know of no 
cohousing community that employs a "private security detail".  This 
sounds more like the gated communities of the upper class, which are 
*not* cohousing.

If you don't like cohousing and want to attack it, that's your right. 
But if you want to establish and maintain credibility, you should get 
your facts right.

Sincerely yours,

-- Ed Stauff