Cohousing-L Mailing List: Re: FIRST POST Questions and sort of statement (Wayne Tyson)

[Elizabeth Magill (pastorlizm]

In my experience "no rules" means "only unwritten rules".

That is, "everyone" expects a certain type of behavior (say, no  
running in the common house, pay bills no more than 2 days late, take  
a turn mowing the lawn) and  will glance disapprovingly at the person  
who doesn't follow the rule.

But should a person not know what is expected, forget what was  
discussed, join after the first day, not have reading social signals  
as a major strength, or be having a bad day; that person doesn't have  
any way to find out what that rule is. So they see people looking dis- 
approving, but don't know why.

"Social mores" depend on culture. If you expect all members to be  
from the same culture you are limiting the group quite a bit. It will  
be unlikely to attract people from other cultures (say different  
education levels, different economic background, different ethnicity,  
different religions, etc.) if the founding members have a set of  
social mores they aren't willing to name, and discuss, but just think  
"everyone should know this".

In terms of kids and rules, my nephew S would thrive in "no rules"-- 
he reads the social mores cultures similar to his own easily.
My niece A would simply be unable to participate. (14 year olds.)

-Liz
Elizabeth Magill
www.worcesterfellowship.org



On Sep 9, 2010, at 4:24 PM, Wayne Tyson wrote:

> Neena,
>
> Thanks for the ideas; they will help a lot, especially in an  
> environment of
> no rules about not talking about rules or no rules.
>
> Where I'm going with this is a challenge to the straight-jacketing  
> effects
> of rules and laws as a substitute for social mores and, of course,  
> "working
> things out." I know this is uncomfortable for some, but I join you in
> appreciating the cordial nature of the discourse.
>
> Will kids be better off in a rules environment or a no-rules  
> environment?
>
> WT