Cohousing-L Mailing List: Social behavior Re: FIRST POST Opinion on "Not-rule" #7

[Fred H Olson (fholson]

Wayne Tyson <landrest [at] cox.net>
is the author of the message below.  It was posted by
Fred, the Cohousing-L list manager <fholson [at] cohousing.org>
after deleting excessive quotes.
--------------------  FORWARDED MESSAGE FOLLOWS --------------------

Thanks for the observations. I'm not a smoker nor much of a noisemaker, but
I do think that social mores (mutual respect) are better than laws and rules
that substitute therefor. People who don't want to be social (in the sense
of not offending others and not wanting to be offended) are unlikely to want
to be a part of a group in which they are not a "good fit." This is a large
part of the conundrum that I believe a diversity of social arrangements can
help to unravel (as opposed to "straighten out"). The presence of a rule or
law invites reliance upon it, which undermines context-relevant social
adjustment. Ostracism, for example, need not rise to the level of
banishment, unless it is "prescribed by law," and therefore cannot consider
the complexities of individual cases, thus leading in the direction of
authoritarian conformity. Thomas Jefferson, for example, suggested that it
was as important to protect the rights of the minority as it was for the
minority to protect the rights of the majority. Original or progressive
thinking cannot, by definition, be achieved without challenge to the
authority of the majority. This is not to say that the majority is always
wrong, only to say that its tendency toward resistance to change is
sharpened by challenge. If the social fabric is open to challenges to the
assumptions of its majority, it can both moderate extremes and refine
behavior rather than restrict it.

WT

PS:

At a personal level, I was once a "member" of a group of "live-aboards" (or
"live-and-let-live-aboards") who never had meetings or big noisy discussions
but would take action if more subtle measures did not produce a reasonable
response in the realm of mutual respect. For example one boater who
persisted with his noisy disrespect had his boat cut adrift one night. He
got the picture and became a contributing citizen. One could argue forever
about how imperfect or disproportionate this particular action was, but the
offending party got the message. Yes, context, proportion, and alternatives
all need judgment in each actual case, so I would not advocate a rule that
every noisy person be cut adrift. In this case, it just shortened his
anchor-rope a little bit and gave him a bit of a start. Yes, in theory and
in fact, it could have ended tragically, but those taking action were, in
this case, reasonably accurate in their prediction of the consequences and
effects. This is not an action that I would have taken, but I did not row
over and chide the "boys" for their intemperate action.

I do not disagree with Naomi; I do not want to breathe even a little
second-hand smoke at any time. I have found, however, most smokers to be
very considerate of non-smokers and most go to great lengths to avoid
offending others while practicing their habit. I know that this is not
universal by any means, and I do recognize the value of laws in helping to
create this change. I believe that everyone's primary right is to be free
from assault by others, be it smoke or words. However, I am more interested
in overall trends toward betterment than pressing for perfection on my terms
only. I will tolerate a little smoke--but will try shifting my position to
avoid its drift, and I will tolerate some noise at a level that I would not
intentionally (but might accidentally) impose upon others.