Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Cohousing mainstream?

[Hune Margulies (hm64]

It is indeed hard to define "true community" but a certain degree of 
intentionality must be ascribed to it before a community becomes 
"genuine" Intentionality now is hard to define as well. However, there is 
also a left-libertarianism that oposses the concept of radical capitalism 
as found in right-wing libertarianism. 

On Thu, 8 Sep 1994, Craig D. Willis wrote:

> Rob Sandelin wrote:
> 
> >Having people share your values is nice in cohousing, but it is not 
> >mandatory ...
> 
> >Cohousing differs from some other forms of intentional community in 
> >that groups can get together without heavy political agendas, ...
> 
> >What cohousing does, IMHO, is offer a touch of cooperative living to the 
> >mainstream culture.
> 
> This is interesting.  I think cohousing has the potential to be many
> different things, and this is certainly a valid view of it.  I hadn't
> integrated my experiences to the point where I was very consciously
> aware of that angle on it, but the cohousing groups that I've had
> first-hand experience with (Albany & Amherst) *are* pretty much
> mainstream, now that I think of it.  I guess I was blinded by my own
> aspirations. :-)
> 
> On the other hand, Kevin Wolf remarked:
> 
> >On the thread of the political implications of co-housing, one thing 
> >some of us in N Street have joked about is that if co-housing catches on 
> >in a major way, a lot less washers, dryers, garden tools, lawn mowers, 
> >hopefully cars, camping equipment, and the like will be purchased.  Each 
> >house won't need its own of everything.
> 
> To me, this sort of possibility for cohousing (and some others
> suggested as well, e.g. sharing office space, unconventional financing
> arrangements) seem to be slipping *out* of the realm of the
> mainstream.  I say that because I view *real* cooperation and sharing
> (when taken beyond just a superficial level) as something that the
> mainstream is probably not ready for yet.
> 
> Cohousing, to date, probably must be seen as pretty much whatever it
> has manifested itself as so far.  Does that make it mainstream?  My
> first-hand experiences, as I say, would somewhat confirm that it does.
> But I've also gotten the impression that some of the communities I've
> been hearing about in this group maybe are *not* so mainstream.  Who
> are the most radical cohousers reading this and would one or more of
> you be willing to describe your community(ies) and tell us what are
> the most significant ways in which yours diverge from the mainstream?
> 
> Bob Morrison said "If large developers were interested in cohousing,
> it would be far easier."
> 
> Cohousing, in the sense of being a (potentially) fairly mainstream
> proposition aimed primarily at altering the design of the community
> (read "development") by adding a common house, making the houses a
> little closer together, and preserving a little open space, *could*
> probably be "coopted" by developers if the demand were perceived to be
> there.  Much of the potential and value of cohousing, in my view,
> would be lost if this were to happen.  But if cohousing were to catch
> on in a "big" way, I suppose this would be almost inevitable, given
> the way things work in our society.  Given this view, I would probably
> alter my contention that cohousing (in this particular form) would
> necessarily represent any threat to the status quo.  Such a cooption
> might very well preserve the essential facets of the system as they
> now exist.  Of course, that isn't the view of cohousing that I had
> when I speculated about the possible consequences of it catching on.
> But in another way, the possibility of such a scenario represents
> *exactly* what I was talking about.
> 
> A final comment regarding Rob Sandelin's question:
> 
> >I would be cautious about the words "true community".  What does that 
> >mean?
> 
> To me, this is not a difficult issue to sort out.  There are certain
> values/attitudes that are essential to community and there are many
> that are not.  A willingness to cooperate, for example, is essential
> as a shared value.  Belief in capitalism or libertarianism or any
> other political system is most assuredly not.  Just don't get confused
> about what is really fundamental and what is not and this sort of
> question won't be confusing.
> 
> Craig
> 
>