Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Re: more perspective on rules and regs

[Liz (liz]

Thank you Tom.

I apologize for my former email, which was sent while I was taking a  
"break" from fighting with Turbo Tax. I cringe each time one of my  
statements is quoted, because that was surely NOT how I meant to  
communicate.

Jenny's message also was a help to me to discern the difference  
between now and later, planning and living.

But Tom's email expresses my thoughts. I thought I heard a request  
for advice on how to talk to a community member about how they were  
not following an agreement that community member had been part of  
making. And many responses addressed just that, they were help for  
how to see what might be going on, and good questions to ask to get  
started on the discussion.

Since I felt like I, too, might be a person who would say: "hey,  
we've agreed to these rules, how do I figure out how to get people to  
follow them?", I reacted strongly to two types of messages.

1) Those that seemed (to me) to say: don't ask us unless you are  
presenting the whole story. (In my experience I rarely ever have the  
whole story, I want to be able to ask questions while still at the  
exploring stage.)

2) Those that seemed (to me) to say: that's a bad rule. (I've helped  
develop many rules in my community. Surely some of them are "bad  
ideas". But since we've created them together, I hope that, as we  
discover the error of our ways, our discussion will be about the  
process of fixing the mistakes, not a lecture on why it is a mistake.)

All that said, I emphasize my first statement that I am sorry that I  
sent the first email. For sure, the majority of the discussion has  
been useful tips on how to deal with the issue when it arises. And  
Jenny's reminder that it won't be my ideal, but will be something  
different and valuable, is quite useful.

Thanks for listening
-Liz
Mosaic Commons
Building hopefully soon in Berlin, MA


On Apr 18, 2006, at 12:07 PM, Tom Hammer wrote:

> When one agrees to join a group, I assume one agrees
> to follow all the past agreements of the group as a
> condition of joining.  In our group this is clearly
> stated, written, and signed upon  joining.  The past
> agreements should all be explained clearly.
>
> Arguments of legalities and the Constitution are not
> at all relevant, in my humble opinion.
>
> The struggle then becomes to live within the system.
>
> Humans in our culture are raised around me and I, and
> we are very unused to "we."  We have to be open to
> learning a culture of "we" to live in or start
> cohousing successfully, as  I understand it.
>
> Sometimes when we try to learn a culture of we,
> feelings come up.  These feelings, especially if the
> new people are not carefully taught, but even among
> experienced cohousers, can be attached to a particular
> issue such as fences, pets, and satellite dishes.
> These are not  the real question, in my opinion, but
> it is simply  where the feeling gets attached.  The
> group needs to stand firm in solidarity against the
> attachment of feelings to any particular issue.
> Feelings will come up, and I hope there are resources
> to deal with them within the group--peacemakers,
> mediators, and so on.  In a long established community
> like a monastery or a native American tribe, the
> culture (rules) are never questioned, and there were
> always people who could not fit into the group, and
> they left, but the group stayed intact and healthy.
>
> People entering cohousing, as I understand it, do not,
> no matter how much money they pay for their house (old
> style, individualistic thinking) get to conravene the
> culture, decisions, and norms of the group.
>
> If someone cannot learn these lessons or has so many
> feelings brought up by trying to become part of "we"
> that objectivity and insight about oneself and the
> group and the importance of its culture are lost, then
> a gentle goodbye, with grace, is in order that would
> be initiated as much by the individual or family as by
> the group.   I would think that would rarely happen.
> Leaving would mean that the individual or family could
> not grow quickly or easily enough from his/her former
> place of "I" to "we", but s/he would not  be blamed.
> The parting would occur with sadness but with
> understanding among all parties, and someone else or
> some other family would take her/his place.
>
> Best wishes to all,
>
> Tom Hammer
> Concord Village
> --where we don't yet have land, but I hope we are
> learning the lessons of community as we travel the
> journey.
>
> http://www.concordvillage.org
>
>
> -
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 08:31:28 -0400
> > From: Sharon Villines <sharon [at] sharonvillines.com>
> > Subject: Re: [C-L]_ more  perspective on rules and
> > regs
> > To: Cohousing-L <cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org>
> > Message-ID:
> <1901e9442918a4da34d71707e66d8ce2 [at] sharonvillines.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252;
> > delsp=yes;
> >         format=flowed
> >
> >
> > On Apr 16, 2006, at 10:50 PM,
> > <truddick [at] earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Not specifically cohousing, but a similar kind of
> > idea:  a suburban
> > > Cincinnati couple was prohibited from putting up a
> > privacy fence
> > > because it
> > > was too “visually imposing”.  So they found a way
> > to express themselves
> > > without breaking any rules!
> http://www.daytondailynews.com/localnews/content/localnews/daily/
> > > 0417ohtoile
> > > ts.html?cxtype=rss&cxsvc=7&cxcat=
> >
> > In "we-they" governance, acting out like this is
> > often the only way to
> > emphasize that we are all in this together folks. We
> > need to find
> > mutually satisfying solutions if the boat is to stay
> > afloat. But when
> > transfered into consensus communities it is odd
> > behavior.
> >
> > What most intentional communities are trying to
> > achieve is governance
> > by agreement, not by authority. The objective is
> > "we" not "we-they."
> >
> > Since people who move into a community have not been
> > part of those
> > agreements, it is often hard for them to see that
> > they are violating
> > the whole concept of community, not just one
> > agreement. The learning
> > curve is steep so they continue to behave as if the
> > rules are there to
> > be broken.
> >
> > Instead of making their case for changing the
> > rules--updating the
> > agreements--they figure out how to "get away with
> > things." How far can
> > they go? How long will it take people to notice?
> > Often there is some
> > element of "Aren't I cute?' or "See, I'm smarter
> > than you and you can't
> > catch me!". Anyone who opposes them is viewed as
> > being the big bad
> > parent.
> >
> > When a two-year-old does this, it is cute and it is
> > smart because they
> > are just learning that they have free will. But when
> > an adult does it,
> > it loses it's appeal.
> >
> > This makes it very difficult inter-personally for
> > the person who wants
> > to function as a "we" in accordance with the
> > governance structure that
> > preserves the integrity of the community.
> >
> > Sharon
> > ----
> > Sharon Villines
> > Dynamic Governance (sociocracy)
> > http://www.sociocracy.info
> _________________________________________________________________
> Cohousing-L mailing list -- Unsubscribe, archives and other info at:
> http://www.cohousing.org/cohousing-L/