Cohousing-L Mailing List: Diversity???

[Cheryl A. Charis-Graves (ccharis]

On 6/16/02 6:39 PM, "Elizabeth Stevenson" <tamgoddess [at] attbi.com> wrote:

> . . . is not only commercial and not involving other cohousers, it is a
right-wing organization. People objected to it politically and
> personally . . . So we decided that no commercial enterprise
> would be allowed in the CH, rather than have to make judgement calls on
> people or organizations.

I feel compelled to speak to this point.

It seems fundamentally wrong for one group to decide they don't want another
group "in their presence" because of philosophical differences. This seems
dangerous and hypocritical, to say the least.

What is the line? Cohousers talk about wanting to make a difference, wanting
to create neighborhoods where people can "come together" in a different way.
So if you only hang out with people who look like you and talk like you,
where is the difference in that? What kind of message does that convey?

A friend of mine claims somewhat tongue in cheek that cohousers are
left-wing socialists. Are we?

If we don't examine this question, we are contributing to an "us-them"
world. Is that what we are working so hard to do? A man in our community
died recently; at his service, his son talked about this man's belief in an
"I-thou" world. I understood that to mean that each person is a part of the
whole, to be embraced for the ways in which we are alike. Isn't that the
core meaning of the phrase, "Namasté?"

I understand wanting home to be sanctuary, to be safe, to be comfortable. I,
too, want the Common House to be considered an extension of my living room,
and I treat it as such. I am not interested in a stream of public events
that make it difficult for me to feel at home in our Common House.

But we are not all cut from the same cloth. The reasons for having or not
having a group be at our Common House should not revolve around whether or
not "we, the majority" approve of the way they think. If anything, we should
be expanding our horizons of who we listen to and what we seek to
understand.

It is not my wish to criticize others, but I am truly shocked that we might
engage in group discrimination in this way. The reasons for turning down a
group might be the wish to keep our home safe, free from excessive outside
traffic. But let's be clear about that, and not mix it up with our own
prejudices.

So that may be what this group has done, i.e. by refusing all commercial
enterprises, it eliminates the necessity of making a judgment call on one
group vs. another. That prevents one kind of discord. I am wondering if that
is our aim, to prevent discord? Or is it possibly to find a way through that
discord to a third possibility?

I understand some of what we are doing in cohousing to be about embracing
differences, finding ways to live with the ways in which we are different. I
find extremists of any flavor difficult to talk to, regardless of political
affiliation. But I encourage us all to think about the benefits of engaging
in meaningful dialogue with someone who thinks differently than we do. Of
course we need a place where we feel comfortable talking freely. But we also
need to expand our awareness to those who might ask challenging questions of
us or even make us feel a little uncomfortable.

Climbing off my soapbox now,
Cheryl Charis-Graves
Harmony Village, Golden, CO

P.S. I speak only for myself, of course, not for Harmony Village





_______________________________________________
Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at] cohousing.org  Unsubscribe  and other info:
http://www.communityforum.net/mailman/listinfo/cohousing-l