Re: Is communal ownership obligatory for cohousing?
From: Brian Bartholomew (
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 21:11:01 -0700 (PDT)
"Diane Bassett" <diane [at]> writes:

> Since the word "neighborhood" is so widely used in the general
> vernacular to mean a geographic area, and doesn't necessarily imply
> cooperative sharing activities, I think "intentional neighborhood"
> might not work as well with the general public as something like
> "highly cooperative neighborhood" or "sharing neighborhood".  I'm
> not familiar with the technicalities behind shortening something to
> "coop neighborhood"-- I think that might again connotate the wrong
> thing.  So personally, I'd lean toward "sharing neighborhood" since
> it seems to capture the cultural spirit and is easy for the general
> public to quickly understand.

> [...]

> So as we consider coming up with names for things that we might not
> consider a full cohousing configuration, I'm interested in keeping
> this audience of folks in the general public who might be enticed to
> think about these topics in mind.  In other words, let's try to make
> it easy for them to understand.

I see your points, but I don't like "communal" or "sharing".  Due to
Newspeak, it's hard to indicate cooperation (two or more acting in
concert for mutually beneficial synergy) without also indicating
communism (control by the majority, forcible sharing).

        "Friends"?                      (Quakers?)
        "Mostly friends"?               (Cliquey Quakers?)

        "Good country neighbors"?       (Hmmm...)


Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.