Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: COHOUSING-L digest 705

[Barbara Saunders (saunders]

"Underneath this note is of course the knawing issue (to some) of how small 
planned communities can possibly be diverse in certain ways.  My idealism 
wants me to think it totally possible.  My life experience says that such 
diversity, alas, works best either in larger numbers or where neigbhors 
have lots less to do with one another.  I'd like to be told I'm wrong.

But one thing I must reiterate is that for the most part the highly 
disadvantaged permanent (or, so far, permanent) underclass are the ones 
who get occasional offerings for communities with public monies.  The 
newly disabled,  who slide into poverty from 
fancier cultural and educational and professional/artistic backgrounds can 
sometimes get help for INDIVIDUAL solutions (an apartment rental)."

Hmm...this fits into the earlier thread about "capitalism."  IMO, "communal
living" offers the potential for "community," not *just because of the living
together, but also because of the potential for saving money and working
less in the corporate jobs people usually work to make enough money to
buy houses in middle-class neighborhoods.  The potential for a life that
revolves around community rather than work. So, for me, cohousing which does
not remove the need for the capitalist-consumerist-corporate *lifestyle is
not particularly attractive.  I'm not thinking of people who "slide into
poverty," (interesting that not middle-class comes to equal "poverty.") But,
people with middle-class backgrounds and education, who don't want to work
in the "middle-class professions."

Barbara

Barbara