Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: "Base Model" Cohousing - Hold the Options, Please

[Monty Berman (mberman]

Dear Dan,
        I like the point you are making. If I've got you right you are 
pointing out that there are some relatively basic  or essential 
ingredients that comprise the co-housing experiment, and that it is easy 
to start adding additional appealing  components. However, these can, in 
some cases, actually undermine the solidity of an enterprise and, thus, 
endanger its existence.
        Such stretching has been the case at times in our EcoVillage at ithaca 
experience, I would say, and when this occurred I do recall reflecting 
back on those basics and working on letting them "be enough."

Monty Berman   the ever-progressing EcoVillage at Ithaca
 
On Wed, 11 Oct 1995, Dan Suchman wrote:

> Thank you Stuart, Zev, Rob, David M. (and others) for stirring me to write 
> about
> the issues of spirituality and ideologies in cohousing.  I find merit in the
> points of view expressed by each of you.
> 
> While researching the purchase of a new car, I had a frustrating experience 
> that
> I think provides a good metaphor for the infusion of cohousing with various
> ideologies:  All I really wanted was a "base model" car, with one or two
> optional upgrades.  Unfortunately, the manufacturer of this particular car did
> not provide "a la carte" selections.  Instead, options were "packaged" with
> several other expensive options, most of which I did not need or want to pay
> for.   If I really wanted the car, I would be forced to "bite the bullet" and
> buy a lot of extraneous and expensive stuff which experience had taught me I 
> did
> not need, and some of which was likely to break down and actually result in 
> less
> convenience and reliability.
 > 
> So it seems to be for cohousing.  As I see it, the "base model" has only a few
> essential elements:  dwellings which face (or at least open onto) a pedestrian
> commons, a common house which forms a social hub and at which optional common
> meals are served, and an intention of the part of residents to share some
> resources and to know and interact with one another in a cooperative way.  The
> "options" are myriad, and seem to be bundled in certain groups (with frequent
> overlap between groups), including the "residents as developers" group,  the
> "spiritual" group, the "green/environmental" group, the "feelings/process" 
> group
> and many more.  Like Stuart, I suspect that some of my impatience with and
> annoyance at these "options" has to do with my own upbringing and experiences.
> However, I believe that a significant portion of my opposition to loading up
> cohousing with such ideologies is that many of these options seem to have 
> become
> "standard equipment".  While ideological adherents may see no problem with 
> this
> fact, I believe that a significant portion of society is being steered away 
> from
> cohousing because cohousing has been made (by adopting certain assumptions) so
> difficult to create and has taken on such an "alternative" or "New Age" kind 
> of
> face. 
> 
> I am personally committed to having cohousing become a mainstream housing
> alternative,  rather than "alternative housing", in the U.S.  I believe 
> strongly
> that cohousing can help reverse some of the disturbing post-World War II 
> trends
> in American housing and culture.  However, in order to do so, I believe that
> cohousers must become less attached to some of the non-essential dogmas that
> have become the standard.  I wish to state clearly that I believe spiritual
> pursuits, environmental consciousness, and sensitivity to feelings/ process 
> are
> all admirable and valuable goals.  However, I suggest that these are matters
> best left to individual choice and spread by individual modeling of the
> benefits.  Requiring (expressly or impliedly) that cohousers pass an 
> ideological
> litmus test imposed by the group is a formula for parochialism -- the opposite
> of what I believe most cohousers intend.
> 
> I'm sure that it will occur to some readers that eschewing one set of values
> necessarily means adopting another.  True enough.  I suggest that until
> cohousing itself becomes "mainstream", that aspiring cohousers stick to tried
> and proven mainstream models, which include (gulp!) democratic process (rather
> than the poorly understood and applied "consensus" model), delegation of
> decision making (this is NOT the same as hierarchy -- and I don't believe that
> there is anything inherently wrong with hierarchy), separation of Church and
> State (keep even poly-religious spiritual ceremonies out of group government 
> and
> group sponsored activities) and others.  Once cohousing becomes more widely
> accepted and available as a housing option, let the specialization begin!
> 
> Dan Suchman
> Winslow Cohousing
> Bainbridge Island, WA
> [My opinions do not necessarily reflect those of all of my beloved cohousing
> neighbors]
> 
>