Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: Did your community celebrate last night?

[Dan Hazen (dan.allencreek]

Greetings,

As a long time "lurker" on this list, I feel compelled to, for the first
time, offer up some thoughts. Until now, I have been soaking up information
because I am, as yet,  only one person in the very early stages of
developing a co-housing plan in my area. 

My plan really blends two ideas: the "structure" of Co-housing and the
"values" of Christian monasticism. Being an Evangelical Christian sometimes
places me in the center of the majority, and sometimes, far to the fringes
of a minority. It all depends on the group I'm relating to. 

This brings me to the concept of "diversity" as Diane addressed it below.
It's always been interesting to me that "diversity", divorced from any other
supporting value, has become a value unto itself. The community that I hope
to build one day will be open to all, regardless of faith, background, race,
gender, criminal record, politics...you name it. I suppose I DO plan to
discriminate against other species :-) though that could change too!
However, "diversity" is not the value that drives this openness. It's love.

The realization on the part of some "diverse" co-housing communities that
there might be some people who did not hold to a certain political view is
an indicator that diversity (as a value by itself) has (at best) limited
value.

There is a very famous passage in the Christian scriptures which underlines
this. Many people have heard portions of 1 Corinthians 13 in the setting of
a wedding (which is lovely, but not the first context for the words). The
first context was in teaching people how to live together in community:

"1If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am
only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2If I have the gift of prophecy
and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that
can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. 3If I give all I
possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love,
I gain nothing." 

In other words, "I can value diversity all day...but if it is not founded in
love it's hollow."

It is not my goal here to proselytize for the sake of Christianity, or even
for the sake of "love". I simply want to contribute to the discussion the
idea that diversity by itself is really an illusion in terms of a "value".
It can certainly be a GOAL if one can find some intrinsic value in it. But
then that's the point: if the intrinsic value behind the goal of diversity
is not love - then what could it be? 

It COULD be something like "creating a healthy balance of people "types" in
the community to insure the stability of the community". But then we've got
to ask ourselves what we do with people who are "diverse" but, who by nature
and by definition, will DE-STABILIZE the community? Suddenly we find
ourselves in a conundrum: If we value diversity, yet person X will
destabilize our community, then we must admit that we are actually committed
to LIMITED diversity; that there are in fact "some kinds of people" we
cannot accept into the community. Therefore, "diversity" as a central value
loses its meaning.

As a staunch advocate for personal liberty, I think communities should
establish criteria for membership. People will join or not based on their
resonance with those criteria. However, to then establish "diversity" as a
central value in such a community is to fool one's self and potentially
build dis-function into the community because the TRUE, UNDERLYING values go
un-spoken, camouflaged beneath the stated ones. 

As someone who has been accepted in "diverse" communities and also excluded
from "diverse" communities, I believe that "diversity" is really not what
most people are after. Building a community based on their personal values
is. It is for me anyway.

Some may say, "Well, my personal values INCLUDE diversity." I would say,
"Great! Do you have ANY criteria for membership in your community?" If the
answer is "yes" then I would say that it CAN'T be diversity that you're
after. You have only limited diversity and there is a DEEPER value that
establishes your criteria for membership. For example, you might reasonably
embrace "diversity" but choose to exclude those who don't accept consensus
leadership. Your diversity value was just trumped by the value of
maintaining unity and order. One could argue that this sounds like a "Strict
Father" approach, which isn't always bad...IF you understand that your own
value system is based on the deeper value, and not the surface value of
diversity. 

I'll admit it: I'm not interested in diversity. I'm interested in loving
God, and loving my neighbors, whoever they are. That may or may not result
in some kind of "diversity". I really don't care. This thinking may not be
at the center of your co-housing community, and that's o.k. I would never
dream of trying to IMPOSE my values on others. But I would encourage all of
us to very closely examine our own value systems and make sure that we
understand what is truly at the core of them.

It is my sincere hope that NONE of what I have said here is offensive or
off-putting...I know that bringing any degree of "religion" into polite
discussions can be...touchy(?) I'm grateful for all the information I've
gleaned from this list, and hope this discussion will help to improve the
quality of all our communities.

Peace,

Dan
Col. 3:11-17

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave and Diane [mailto:daveanddee [at] verizon.net]
> Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 8:08 AM
> To: cohousing-l [at] cohousing.org
> Subject: Re: [C-L]_ Did your community celebrate last night?
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> I think this pretty much nails it. The only thing I was going to add
> is that cooperation strikes me as more of a liberal (or "Nurturing
> Parent") value, whereas living in your own house that you manage
> independently strikes me as more or a conservative (or "Strict
> Father") value. I have given tours of JP cohousing to some from the
> "Strict Father" point of view, and they are very skeptical of how the
> whole cooperation thing works out.
> 
> To my way of thinking this conversation is an important one to have
> on Cohousing-L because it helps clarify what we mean by "diversity."
> As Rob Sandelin has pointed out many times, major conflicts in the
> consensus process usually revolve around conflicting values.
> Therefore, it makes sense to examine the underlying assumptions about
> "diversity" and ask ourselves what do we mean by this term? Should we
> encourage people with a value that differs from one of the
> fundamental concepts of cohousing ("cooperation") to live in this
> kind of a housing situation?
> 
> Food for thought....
> 
> --Diane(:^]
> 
>