Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Our best argument so far

[Buzz & Denise (72253.2101]

I've been content to let this thread wind down, but suddenly realized there
maybe a major misunderstanding that might be cleared up easily and with very
good results.

The background:  Many people, prompted by the now-famous Closing Ceremony at the
Conference, expressed that they would not like to see this sort of thing in
Cohousing.  Other people stated spirituality was fine with them, or that
whatever your world view is, is your "religion", so it would always be present.

The Crux of the matter to me:  In many postings I read from the former group,
instead of speaking to what they themselves desired in cohousing, they spoke to
what cohousing should be for everybody else.  "Cohousing should be...",
"Cohousing should not be..." etc.

I do NOT believe the essence of this past two weeks of sometimes heated
discussion was spirituality vs secular.  Instead, the fulcrum on which this
discussion turned was really this:  many people, while honestly stating their
feelings, put them in "we", or "us" terminology, and thus purported to speak for
all of us.  This is a common practice, but one with bad consequences, because it
is absolutely guaranteed to instigate an argument.  Every time.  It doesn't
matter if the subject matter is "religion" (whatever that is), food, or
architecture.  Consider this;  if you say:  "I want to live in a straw bale
house because I love them", people will basically say "good for you".  If you
say:  "I think cohousing should be straw bale houses", then people will jump all
over you, if they bother to reply to such stupidity at all.  Why?  Because you
have taken a personal opinion, which is (or at least always should be)
respected, and transferred it into a global statement, which essentially tells
other people how they should live their lives.  Everybody hates that.  It
doesn't matter which side of the argument you are on, if someone does that to
you, you will hate it as much as they did.

The solution, as already know, is for everybody involved in this and future
discussions, to use "I" statements.  This is nothing brilliant on my part;  I'm
just reminding us of its effectiveness.  From marriage counsellors to consensus
trainers, this is taught as the preferred method of communication.  (Amoung my
friends, I'm considered a notorious abuser of this, and so after being corrected
about a hundred times, I'm glad I've finally remembered it enough to remind
others). 

If people had said "I don't want (spirituality, horses, oatmeal, group sex;
fill in anything) in my community", then a fruitfull discussion of the pros and
cons might emerge, and since people ultimately have free choice over their lives
no matter what you think, then nothing worse than a better understanging of our
wonderfull differences could result.  However, by saying "Cohousing should not
have...." then you are in effect trying to make a decision for someone else.
You will have a fight on your hands.  Whatever your belief is, you absolutely
cannot win that fight, because you have no control over what other people want.
Its hopeless.  Forget it.  You will only create a polarized situation, and thus
be counterproductive to your own desires.

Note that the forms of discussion which we all find nauseating, such as
presidential debates and speaches by Saddam Hussein, are conducted by the
participants entirely in the global style.

I am fairly sure that all of this was done quite innocently and with only good
intentions.  At least that's what I think when I do it myself.  Since I am often
guilty of the same thing, I am definitly not accusing anyone of anything, only
suggesting a more strategic approach.  Again, I suspect this cognitive disorder
was really at the heart of the recent discussion, and that by penetrating to
this level of understanding, much common ground is quickly found.  

Paradoxically, this was the reason that very first posting was made!  I'm not
sure, but I recall someone felt that "religion" was being foisted upon him, that
others assumed the Closing Ceremony was appropriate for him.  The polarization
had begun;  in reaction, it was easy to accidentally cross over the line and say
that such events should not be part of cohousing (banned from those who happen
to really like them).  What comes out comes around.

I will also add, that while restricting global statements and trying to use more
"I" statements is quite beneficial in all situations (unless you make a living
as a radio evangelist), I think it is fundemental in the cohousing situation.
It is not just a good option, it is literally a primary aspect of what we are
doing.  In cohousing:  *No one is in charge.  *There is no credo to follow.
*There is no higher authority.  WE are in charge, and the only way we make that
work is by allowing everyone to have their say.  Think of it this way:  in your
group, if someone stood up and said:  "Eden Commons should not serve any meat",
what would be the effect?  If your group has the usual decision making process,
I suspect everybody would address this question by stating *thier own* desires
on the subject, rather than arguing about what the entire group should do.  The
hapless vegetarian would not win any adherents with such an authoritarian style.

So, as for your own group, so for the bigger group; the cohousing movement:
everyone needs to have thier own say.  To decide for themselves.  To choose and
rechoose their own situation.  To contribute thier piece to the larger whole.
None of us know what Cohousing will look like.  None of us *should* know;  that
is inherent in the concept, that is the beauty, that is the power, that is scary
and annoying, that is (aaargh!) what we are engaged in doing.

Buzz Burrell
Paonia, CO
72252,2101 [at] compuserve.com